corporal punishment - saskatchewan elocution · pdf filecorporal punishment ... watched, the...

SASKATCHEWAN ELOCUTION AND DEBATE ASSOCIATION

ASSOCIATION D'ÉLOCUTION ET DES DÉBATS DE LA SASKATCHEWAN

Corporal Punishment

"Be it resolved that the Canadian government legallyprohibit parents from using corporal punishment."

Research prepared by SEDA Staff, Fall 2002

SEDA receives funding fromSaskatchewan

Lotteries

SEDA PATRONS

SEDA receives funding from

SEDA

Honorary Patron - Hon. Dr. Lynda M. Haverstock,Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan Lotteries Trust Fund forSport, Culture, and Recreation

Saskatchewan Law FoundationCelebrate Canada Committee for SaskatchewanLuther College High SchoolOfficial Minority Language Office,

Department of EducationMrs. Morris ShumiatcherJohn Archer FamilyOlivia Shumski

Affiliations

Canadian Student Debating FederationSaskCulture Inc.

The Saskatchewan Elocution and DebateAssociation (SEDA) is a non-profit organizationthat promotes speech and debate activities inEnglish and French. The Association is activethroughout the province from grade 6 throughgrade 12, and at the University of Regina and theUniversity of Saskatchewan. The Associationco-ordinates an annual program of speech anddebate tournaments and other special activities,including a model legislature.

SEDA’s staff, along with printed and audio-visualmaterials, are available to assist any individual orgroup interested in elocution and debate.

SEDA is a registered charitable organization.Charitable No. 11914 0077 RR0001.

For further information:

Saskatchewan Elocutionand Debate Association

1860 Lorne StreetRegina, Saskatchewan

S4P 2L7

Telephone: (306) 780-9243Fax: (306) 781-6021

E-Mail: [email protected]: www.saskdebate.com

Macleans’s Who Decides What’s Right?September 10, 2001 Page 1 of 3

Source: Maclean's, September 10 2001vol 114 no 37, p 18-21.

Title: Who decides What's right? The issue of corporal punishment pits the children's aid society against the Church ofGod — and raises questions about the government's role in private lives.

Author: Patricia Chisholm

Category: Social Issues

Subjects: Corporal punishmentChildren's aid societies

Even on a hot summer day, TrudyWiebe is wearing all ankle-lengthskirt in muted colours, a black vestand a pristine, long-sleeved whiteshirt buttoned to the neck. With herhair swept into a bun, Wiebe is thepicture of an upright, 40-year-oldwife and mother, who is alsoassistant minister to theultraconservative Church of God inAylmer, Ont. The 200-membercongregation generated headlinesover the summer for condoningritualized corporal punishment. AsWiebe explains her beliefs, it'sclear her will is strong anduncompromising. But it's alsoobvious she's sensitive to the forcesof social change swirling aroundher. The passion that resonates justbeneath her measured tones hints ofa heart and mind well acquaintedwith the relentless effort required tomaintain a way of life far moresuited to the 19th century than the21st.

The cost of that commitment camecrashing in on the congregation onJuly 4 when the local children's aidsociety, the Family and Children'sServices of St. Thomas and ElginCounty, in Southwestern Ontario'slush farm country, investigated acomplaint that the children of aChurch of God family were beingdisciplined with sticks and belts.After questioning the family--whomay not be identified pending theoutcome of a court hearing thisweek--for 1 1/2 hours, police tookaway the children. As about 70church members and neighbourswatched, the four boys and three

girls, aged six to 14, were draggedfrom their home, kicking andscreaming. It was, Wiebe says, aharrowing experience. "Ourmembers were shocked," she says."It was our worst nightmare. Theother children couldn't sleep thatnight. They didn't know when theirturn would come."

The seven children were, in fact,returned under CAS supervision totheir parents when they agreed notto use physical punishment pendingthe hearing. But then the CASapproached a second family a weeklater. The congregation--drawnmainly from communities inMexico and the United States withroots in the German Church of Godand Mennonite traditions--began tofear that any family with children15 and under could be affected(youths 16 and over are outside thejurisdiction of children's aidsocieties). "They saw that theremight be no end and that the nextday it might be them," Wiebe says,"so they decided that the best thingto do would be to leave thecountry." There are now 26mothers and 93 children fromAylmer living outside Canada,most joining fellow churchmembers in Ohio and Indiana.(Wiebe went with them butreturned two weeks later after heryounger child, Ronald, turned 16.)

It all sounds a little dramatic, alittle overblown: could the localCAS be overreacting? For the mostpart, Aylmer's Church of Godcongregation appears to have

blended well into the community:most of the fathers work in Aylmerand the local chief of police, BilSegui, says the congregation isclose-knit, law abiding and familyoriented. But the case is aboutmuch more than the seeminglyendless debate over spankingchildren. It goes straight to theheart of issues that Canadians havestruggled with before and mostlikely will again: religious beliefversus secular laws, culturaltolerance and the power ofgovernment to regulate people'sprivate lives--including how theytreat their children.

For Church of God members,there's really no debate. The groupadheres closely to literalinterpretations of the Bible. It's anattempt, says Henry Hildebrandt,the pastor of the Aylmer Church ofGod, to return not only totraditional teachings but also to"the life that backs up thatteaching." That includes the ideathat children benefit from aritualized form of physicaldiscipline using a switch or otherflexible instrument. For them, theOld Testament admonition thatsparing the rod will spoil the childmeans exactly that. "We don'tbelieve in using the hand," saysHildebrandt, an energetic 38 withtwo teenage children, one of whomfled to the United States. "A handshould be used for guidance andcomfort. Plus, the hand is way tooready. If a person is angry, theymay just slap with their hand. Wedon't believe in hitting children that


way." The alternative, Hildebrandtsays, is a switch or a leather strapapplied when emotions havecooled. And he says there is noobligation to use corporalpunishment. "I spend more timetelling people when not to use it,"he says, "than the other wayaround."

All of which creates a knottyproblem for the Family andChildren's Services of St. Thomasand Elgin County. Under Ontario'sChild and Family Services Act,child welfare agencies have a dutyto investigate and the power toseize children if they believethey're being harmed or are at riskof being harmed. The agencies useprovincial standards set by theministry of community and socialservices to decide when to takechildren, and those guidelines, saysSteve Bailey, executive director ofthe St. Thomas and Elgin Countyagency, include corporalpunishment with an object. "Thereis an assumption," Bailey says,"that using an implement will causeharm or is likely to cause harm tothe child. A hand is less likely to dothat than a belt." In fact, the societyhas clashed before with parentswho, for religious reasons, use anobject to discipline their children,but most of those cases have endedin a compromise, Bailey says. ButChurch of God members, he adds,appear more resistant than most toconforming with provincialstandards. "It becomes very trickywhen values conflict withlegislation," he notes. "But itappears that the law does not allowreligion as an excuse."

Well, that depends. Over the pastdecade, in particular, Canadiancourts and tribunals have wrestledover the conflict between religiousbeliefs on one hand and, on theother, Canadian law, standardmedical procedures and even dresscodes. One of the hottest conflictsbetween religion and secularsociety, in fact, was all about

appearances. In 1988, Baltej SinghDhillon challenged the RCMPwhen the force told him he couldjoin only if he didn't wear theturban his Sikh religion demands.Two years later, the RCMPrelented, but a group of retiredMounties took the fight further. Itwas not until 1996 that theSupreme Court of Canada finallyrejected their application to preventturbans being worn with the world-famous red serge.

More troubling are cases that pitreligion against the well-being ofchildren. Increasingly, it appearsCanadian courts will side withphysicians and child-protectionauthorities. In the early 1990s, theparents of a premature baby girlrefused to allow a blood transfusionbecause it conflicted with theteachings of their church, theJehovah's Witnesses. She receivedthe transfusion only after anOntario court ordered the baby bemade a temporary ward of theToronto Children's Aid Society,which authorized the procedure.The parents later challenged thelegislation, but the Supreme Courtof Canada held in 1995 that theirright to religious freedom did nottake precedence over the child'sright to lifesaving medical care.Margaret Somerville, a professor oflaw and medicine at McGillUniversity, says parents' traditionalunrestricted right to raise childrenas they see fit is starting to takesecond place to parentalresponsibilities--and much moreoften than in the past thoseresponsibilities are being definedby public authorities. "TheSupreme Court has been clear," shesays. "People are entitled to theirown beliefs, but they can't forcethose beliefs on a child, if it willharm the child."

Nonetheless, the issue remainsmired in controversy. Tyrell Dueckwas only 13 when he wasdiagnosed with bone cancer in thefall of 1998. His fundamentalist

Christian parents, of Martensville,Sask., resisted doctor's advice thatTyrell be treated withchemotherapy; a court applicationby his doctors resulted in an orderplacing him under the care of theprovince's social services, whichauthorized the treatments. But afterthree months, facing morechemotherapy and possibleamputation of his leg, Tyrellrefused further intervention andsaid he wanted to go to theMexican clinic his parentsfavoured. A judge subsequentlyfound he wasn't competent to makethat decision because of the undueinfluence of his father, Timothy.By then, however, the boy's cancerhad progressed and his doctors lefttreatment options to the Dueckfamily. Tyrell died a few monthslater.

The Aylmer families face no suchdire consequences--at worst, theymay decide to leave Canada forgood. Hildebrandt is optimisticthere will be a resolution to thecase that will allow hiscongregation to stay put. ButWiebe seems less hopeful. Shecalls the CAS's intervention"persecution," adding the Biblewarns Christians that such is theirlot. She thinks it's unlikely a middleground will be found. The family atthe heart of the controversy,however, is looking for a court-ordered solution: Valerie Wise, aLondon, Ont., lawyer representingthe mother, says the CAS may notbe taking accepted parentingpractices into account whenapplying its guidelines on corporalpunishment. The Church of Goduses corporal punishment in a veryformal, controlled way, she says."It is not done in the heat of themoment. No one wants to see kidsabused, but where is the balance?"

That, of course, is the heart of thematter. While church members mayclaim to use corporal punishmentwith great care, a parenting manualposted on the Web site of a sister


congregation in Tennessee advisesusing a switch to control childrenas young as 10 months old.Hildebrandt has provided hiscongregation with the manual,Mommy, Daddy, We Would SeeJesus!, as well as making itavailable to Family and Children'sServices of St. Thomas and ElginCounty. And while Hildebrandt hassaid his congregation doesn't agreewith everything in the tract, heacknowledges his members supportmost of its content.

Dan Merkur, a Torontopsychoanalyst and lecturer at theUniversity of Toronto, believesmany parents have become toopermissive. But, he says, the formof punishment Church of Godmembers routinely mete out goesway too far the other way. "This isa particularly cruel practice,"Merkur says. "They have picked averse out of the Old Testament thathappens to suit their tyranny. Whatabout the verse in the NewTestament that says, `suffer thechildren to come unto me?' At acertain point, it just gets silly. Thisis not about which scripture shouldbe followed. It's about ethics." Yes,but whose? All signs seem to pointaway from the predictability--andcomfort--of traditional religions

and cultures, and firmly towardsthe ever-changing worlds of law,government, and academe.

THE DISCIPLINE DEBATE IN 1932The debate over spanking childrenis far from new. Maclean's coveredthe issue in 1932, when writer DoraM. Sanders captured thecontrasting views of two leadingthinkers of the day. Dr. W. E.Blatz, a child psychologist at theUniversity of Toronto, was firmlyagainst corporal punishment; JudgeR. S. Hosking, who presided overthe court of family relations (apredecessor of today's family courtof the Superior Court of Justice) inToronto, was in favour. Someexcerpts from their arguments:

Blatz: It is most unfair for any adultto take advantage of his superiorstrength to force his will on a child.Rather, he should make use of hissuperior intelligence to guide thechild's thoughts and actions.

No child is inherently good or bad.It learns to be both. A shoe put onproperly pleases mother; a sobstifled pleases father.

So, too, a child learns to lie toavoid corporal punishment. Just aseasily he learns to take sugar from

the sugar bowl secretly, becausediscovery will mean prohibition.The child who keeps his fingers ourof the sugar bowl because heknows the sugar doesn't belong tohim is beginning to learn a self-discipline that will never forsakehim.

Hosking: If anybody comes to meand says that the strap, rod, brushand slipper should be discarded, Isay it can't be done.

Spanking is recognized as not onlyproper but necessary, and in somecases is even recommended by thecourt.

It is essential that parental controlshould be able to enforceunquestioning obedience; andsometimes parental control can bemost effectively establishedthrough the strap.

In early childhood, mother'sspanking is usually sufficient,strengthened as it is by contrast toher usual gentleness andgenerosity. But the father is thefinal disciplinarian, and in the caseof a growing boy, he is the mostlikely to have a lasting effect

— End —

Law Now Spanking SurvivesApril-May 2002 Page 1 of 1

Source: Law Now, April-May 2002vol 26 no 5, p 6.

Title: Spanking survives.

Author: Teresa Mitchell

Category: Law

Subjects: Corporal punishment — Laws, legislation, regulations, etc.

The Canadian Foundation forChildren, Youth and the Lawlaunched a court challenge of s.43 of the Criminal Code, whichstates "Every schoolteacher,parent, or person standing in theplace of a parent is justified inusing force by way of correctiontoward a pupil or child, as thecase may be, who is under hiscare, if the force does not exceedwhat is reasonable in thecircumstances." The Foundationargued that children's Charterrights to equal treatment underthe law, security of the person,and freedom from cruel andunusual punishment wereviolated by this section. TheOntario Court of Appeal

unanimously rejected all theirCharter arguments. The judgesruled that s. 43 must be strictlyconstrued, limited to parents andteachers who must closelyinteract with children, exemptsonly force that is reasonable inthe circumstances, anddecriminalizes only non-abusivephysical punishment where theintention is to correct, and thechild can understand thecorrection. They noted that thesection must be looked at withina twofold broad societal context:that families must be allowed toraise their children as free aspossible from governmentintervention; and thatgovernments, both federal and

provincial, provide a frameworkof laws and educationalprograms to minimize oreliminate violence towardschildren. Justice S. Gouge wrote"In summary, the s. 7 issuepresented by s. 43 is not aboutwhether physical punishment ofchildren is good or bad. Thegovernment has clearly andproperly determined that it isbad. Rather, the issue is whethers. 43 infringes the child'ssecurity of person in such a waythat violates the principles offundamental justice. Theappellant has not demonstratedany such violation."

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth, and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General) Ontario Court of AppealJanuary 15, 2002

— End —

Globe and Mail Spare the Law and Kill the ChildApril 18, 2002 Page 1 of 1

Source: Globe and Mail, April 18 2002

Title: Spare the law and kill the child.

Author: Corinne Robertshaw

Category: LawSocial Issues

Subjects: Randal DooleyChildren — Laws, legislation, regulations, etc.Corporal punishmentChild welfare

Section 43 of the Criminal Code ofCanada states: "Everyschoolteacher, parent or personstanding in the place of a parent isjustified in using force by way ofcorrection toward a pupil or child... who is under his care, if the forcedoes not exceed what is reasonableunder the circumstances."

The parents of seven-year-oldRandal Dooley beat him with belts,punched and kicked him over a 10-month period until the night ofSept. 25, 1998; after a final episodeof violence, he died of a braininjury. In a police interview threedays later, Randal's father statedthat he had "flogged" his son amonth earlier for vomiting andsoiling himself. Then he toldRandal he loved him and explainedthat he had to teach him a lesson. "Iwas brought up believing that ifyou spare the rod, you spoil thechild," he told police.

Did the father's belief in corporalpunishment contribute to Randal'sdeath, and does this beliefcontribute to about 26 similardeaths and over 42,000 reports ofphysical abuse in Canada eachyear? Let's consider this question inits social and legal context.

Section 43 is a special defence toassault that justifies corporalpunishment of children. "Justified"in law means "rightful conduct." Weinherited this defence from English

common law when our criminal lawwas first codified in 1892. Recentacquittals under Section 43 showthat it justifies not only severe"spankings" but also kicking andassaults with belts and sticks.

Like Canada, the parents'homeland, Jamaica, also inheritedthis 19th-century defence. LikeCanada, Jamaica has a child-rearing culture that accepts corporalpunishment. The belief in thismethod of "correction" set thescene for the beatings that tookplace at the hands of both parents.Evidence at trial indicated thatsome relatives knew what washappening. They disapproved butdid not notify police or Children'sAid. After all, most parents whobelieve in corporal punishmentdon't end up killing their children.The relatives no doubt assumedthat things would settle down andRandal would survive.

Whether people in the area noticedhis condition is not clear, andwhether if they did, they wouldhave reported it, is far from certain.Our society has many voices quickto denounce "state interference inthe family" and to proclaim thatusing belts and sticks to "spank"children is an important part ofChristian family values. As forRandal, he was described as stoicand uncomplaining. Perhaps he andhis brother saw these beatings as aninevitable part of childhood.

If the brothers had doubted theirparents' right to physically punishthem, might they have sought helpthemselves? Had they been awarethat governments are supposed toprotect children from all forms ofviolence, perhaps they wouldhave. The United NationsConvention on the Rights of theChild requires governments tomake children's rights "widelyknown to adults and childrenalike." But could our governmentdo this while at the same timefighting to uphold Section 43 inthe constitutional challengecurrently before the courts?

The connection between our socialand legal approval of corporalpunishment and Randal's deathcannot be proven with the scientificprecision required by the OntarioCourt of Appeal in its recentdecision on Section 43. But it isapparent enough when Randal'sdeath is viewed in this context.However, his death is but the latestin a long catalogue of injuries anddeaths in the name of "correction."

Other Randals could be saved ifSection 43 were ended. Do ourpoliticians and judges care enoughto do so?

Corinne Robertshaw is a retiredlawyer and founder of the Repeal43 Committee.

— End —

Globe and Mail Spare The ChildJanuary 16, 2002 Page 1 of 1

Source: Globe and Mail, January 16 2002

Title: Spare the child.

Category: Government / Political ScienceLawSocial Issues

Subjects: Children — Laws, legislation, regulations, etc.Children — Management and trainingSpankingCorporal punishment

Section 43 of the Criminal Codeprotects parents, teachers andother guardians from beingcharged with assault when theyuse "force by way of correctiontoward a pupil or child ... if theforce does not exceed what isreasonable under thecircumstances." Yesterday,Ontario's highest court upheldthat law, but that should not bethe last word.

The law needs correcting. It istoo vague. Even by the Canadiangovernment's admission, somecourts have wrongly toleratedsome abusive acts. If judges areconfused, how are parents tomake sense of the law? Also,parents' cultural traditions mayinfluence what they considerreasonable. They need clearerguidance from Parliament.

The Ontario Court of Appeal wasright to find the lawconstitutional, though itsreasoning that Section 43properly balances the interests ofthe child and the interests of thestate was a bit suspect. It isdifficult to understand how thestate's interest can be treated asseparate from the interests of thechild.

However, the child's interest mustbe read to protect his or herfamily from the state's heavyhand, especially from the bluntinstrument of the criminal law,except where there is clearevidence of harm. Corporalpunishment accomplishesnothing except short-termcompliance, and betteralternatives such as time-outs(placing an misbehaving child ona chair or in a room) are oftenavailable; but there is scant

evidence that an occasional open-handed swat on the buttocks orwrist is harmful in practice,though many may find it so inprinciple.

How far may parents go?Evidence accepted by the trialjudge was that the following actsare potentially harmful: hitting achild under 2; hitting teenagers;the use of objects such as belts orrulers; and hitting the head.Causing injury is by definitionabusive. We would add thatteachers and other parentalsurrogates, while they mayrestrain students for safety,should have less leeway toemploy physical methods ofdiscipline.

Parliament should adopt theseideas as a starting point inamending the current law.

— End —

Globe and Mail Discipline: Children’s Rights Take a BlowJanuary 16, 2002 Page 1 of 2


Title: Discipline: children's rights take a blow: by upholding the right to spank, the courts are hurting the law'sability to protect children from abuse, says youth activist Matthew Geigen-Miller.

Author: Matthew Geigen-Miller


Subjects: Children — Management and trainingSpankingCorporal punishmentChildren — Laws, legislation, regulations, etc.

Yesterday the Ontario Court ofAppeal upheld Section 43 of theCriminal Code, which permitsteachers, parents, and peopleacting in the place of a parent touse physical force to discipline achild. But don't break out yourstrap yet: It could be yearsbefore the inevitable appeal tothe Supreme Court is completed,before clarity and closure arereached in the spanking debate.The Court of Appeal hasresolved nothing; it has onlydeepened the controversysurrounding corporalpunishment of children. It's nowmore important than ever for ourfederal government to resolvethis problem in Parliament.

For 15 years, the National YouthIn Care Network has beenspeaking out about the harmfuleffects of hitting children. Allour members and leaders areyouth under 25 who have beenin some government's care.Most of our membersexperienced abuse or neglect intheir homes, and were taken intothe care of child-welfareauthorities for protection.

Once brought into the care ofthe child-welfare system, someyoung people continue toexperience maltreatment, and, insome cases, further abuse. Toprotect other children fromfacing such experiences, our

members speak out about theirencounters with family violence,neglect, and the shortcomings ofthe child-welfare authorities. Alaw that allows caregivers to hitchildren concerns us deeply. Ourexperience shows that hittingchildren has terribleconsequences.

There are many good reasons todo away with legalized corporalpunishment of children. ButCanada's Department of Justicehas chosen not to act to changeSection 43. Instead, ourgovernment has left this decisionto the courts. Given our depth ofexperience with this issue, itmade sense for us to recountcases we're familiar with.

Michelle from Ontario: Sheviews spanking and similarpunishments not as theconsequence of misbehaviour,but as a gateway to harmfulphysical abuse. "It escalates," shesays. "Sometimes, I would try tofight back because I was beingviolated, physically. And thatwould further enrage my mom.And, of course, the adult isstronger in the end, and will endup inflicting the most damage."

Responsible parents who are infavour of corporal punishmentoften say that they would neverspank or hit a child while angry.Unfortunately, there are

countless cases where a parentin an emotionally chargedsituation began to hit and endedup abusing. By eliminatingSection 43, we stop encouraginga discipline method that isknown to be a gateway to abuse.

Stacy from Alberta: Herexperiences with corporalpunishment were not limited tothe family home that the child-welfare system took her awayfrom but carried on in fosterhomes. "It was my first fosterhome and I was really scared,"she recalls. "If I'd get angry, [myfoster mother] would pick me upand she'd throw me. I went toschool with a bruise on myforehead because she slammedmy head into the wall. The policecame [but] didn't do anything."

Children are not onlyvulnerable to corporalpunishment from theirfamilies. Section 43 allowsteachers and "persons acting inthe place of a parent" to useforce to correct a child. This isespecially troubling forchildren and youth in care whocan be subjected to abuse in afoster home. Eliminating theSection 43 defence for fosterparents and other substitutecaregivers will help to ensurethat the child-protectionsystem really does protect.

Globe and Mail Discipline: Children’s Rights Take a BlowJanuary 16, 2002 Page 2 of 2

Richard from British Columbia:He was finally taken into careand placed in a foster home inhis early teens, long after child-welfare authorities hadinvestigated his home for abuse.His stepfather's "disciplineexcuse," Richard says, kept himfrom getting the protection heneeded sooner. "There wereinvestigations but they weredropped because my stepfathersaid I was lying and that I wasonly hit for discipline."

Section 43 obscures child-abuseinvestigations, making it difficultfor police and child-protection

workers to make a legaldistinction between abuse anddiscipline. It can also discouragethe police from pursuing child-abuse complaints, because of theview that Section 43 underminesboth the mandate and legalgrounds to prosecute any child-abuse case that could be justifiedas discipline.

Removing Section 43 from theCriminal Code will give police,crown prosecutors and child-protection workers more powerto investigate and prosecutechild-abuse cases. It will allowthem to make decisions to

prosecute based on thecommunity standard -- not thestandard set by a 109-year-oldlaw. So here's our message toMartin Cauchon, the new federalJustice Minister: Don't wait forthe courts to do the work foryou. Introduce legislation torepeal Section 43 this spring.

Matthew Geigen-Miller, 22, isdirector of education andcommunications for the Ottawa-based National Youth In CareNetwork, an advocacy group forthe more than 62,000 childrenand youth in care in Canada.

— End —

Globe and Mail Ontario Court Upholds Parents’ Right to SpankJanuary 16, 2002 Page 1 of 2


Title: Ontario court upholds parents' right to spank.

Author: Kirk Makin


Subjects: Child welfareChildren — Management and training — Laws, legislation, regulations, etcSpankingCorporal punishment

Parents and teachers are free tospank children for disciplinarypurposes, but only if the forcethey use is reasonable, theOntario Court of Appeal ruledyesterday.

In upholding a Criminal Codeprovision, the court notedapprovingly that the law merelystrikes a fair balance betweenthe state and children inpermitting the use of reasonableforce.

"Parents, teachers and familiesplay very significant roles in oursociety," a 3-0 majorityconcluded. "Facilitating thoseroles in a way which keeps themfree of harm is an objective thatis undoubtedly pressing andsubstantial."

The decision came as a slap inthe face to a broad range ofchild-advocacy groups whichhad hoped to secure a precedent-setting ruling making it illegal tostrike a child for any reason.

The provision dates back to1892, when Parliament gaveparents, surrogate parents andteachers the right to disciplinechildren provided they usereasonable force.

Opponents note that the law,which has its roots in Romantimes, applied at one time towomen, children and slaves. The

only group yet to beemancipated from its reach ischildren, they said.

"There was a time when wedidn't think there was anythingwrong with second-hand smoke,and that we didn't need to buckleup our seat belts in cars," saidMarvin Bernstein, a spokesmanfor the Ontario Association ofChildren's Aid Societies.

"As long as people think the useof force is their God-given right,it is less likely that they willlook at alternative modes ofparenting."

The court conceded the benefitsof spanking remain unprovenbut said it is equally unclear thatthere is any direct link betweencorporal punishment andnegative developments in achild's future.

Mr. Bernstein said the judgmentis out of step with almost adozen European countries thathave restricted force againstchildren.

"We did expect more in the wayof a detailed analysis of theseissues," he said. "Given theprominence of the issues and thelevel of preparation by counsel,it was dealt with in a way thatwas a little bit simplistic."

The key group behind theconstitutional challenge, theCanadian Foundation forChildren, Youth and the Law,has not yet made a decision onwhether to appeal to theSupreme Court of Canada.

Writing for Mr. Justice MarvinCatzman and Mr. Justice DavidDoherty yesterday, Mr. JusticeStephen Goudge said corporalpunishment is "clearly justified,"provided it falls short of abuse.He added that were society tocriminalize parents and teachersfor using non-abusive force, itcould actually do more harmthan good.

Permitting reasonable forcemeans that parents and children"can carry out their importantresponsibilities to train andnurture children without theharm that such sanctions wouldbring to them, to their tasks andto the families concerned," hewrote.

Child advocates found solace inan observation by the judges thatmany individuals acquitted inthe past of assault charges wouldnot be acquitted today.

Globe and Mail Ontario Court Upholds Parents’ Right to SpankJanuary 16, 2002 Page 2 of 2

They also applauded a list oflimitations to corporalpunishment that the court failedto give the force of law, butnonetheless suggested weresensible guidelines. Theyincluded:

• Not hitting a teenager or achild under 2;

• Not using an object such asa belt or ruler;

• Avoiding slapping orstriking the head of a child.

— End —

Globe and Mail Spanking Puts Power Over Safety, Court ToldSeptember 11, 2001 Page 1 of 1

Source: Globe and Mail, September 11 2001

Title: Spanking puts power over safety, court told.

Author: Graeme Smith


Subjects: Child welfareParent and child (Law)Corporal punishment — Laws, legislation, regulations, etc — Canada

Corporal punishment laws valueparents' authority above the safetyand well-being of their children, anappeals court heard during the firstday of a controversial spankingcase.

The arguments in the Ontario Courtof Appeal in Toronto yesterdaywere just the latest salvos in a five-year court battle to quash section43 of the Criminal Code, which letsparents and teachers disciplinechildren by hitting them.

The Attorney-General's lawyerswill offer their rebuttal today.Arguments are expected to finishtomorrow, though observers say thedispute could end up in theSupreme Court of Canada.

Lawyers for the CanadianFoundation for Children, Youthand the Law, which is challengingthe law, told a panel of three judgesthat a decision by a lower court thatsupported spanking had mistakenlyvalued parents' "protected sphere ofactivity" over childrens' rights.

"This section denies children equalprotection under the law," saidlawyer Paul Schabas. "We submit it

does so in an unjustifiable,stereotypical manner, based on thenotion that it [corporal punishment]is good for kids."

On the contrary, Mr. Schabas said,most experts agree that corporalpunishment -- hitting, slapping, andspanking -- harms children'sphysical and emotionaldevelopment.

Mr. Schabas added that the vaguewording of section 43, whichendorses any "reasonable"punishment, allows too many cruelacts such as beatings with rulers,belts, and even horse harnesses.

"At the end of the day, we're leftwith the personal opinions of thejudge [in each case]," said CherylMilne, another lawyer for thefoundation.

"Because the law presumes hittingis okay, it's based on a falsepremise. It's completely anathemato our modern, 21st-centuryconception of children's rights."

The arguments were met withvigorous questioning from the appealjudges, who often interrupted the

lawyers' presentations. Mr. JusticeStephen Goudge in particulardefended the law's inclusion of theword "reasonable," which is used inmany other laws.

"At the heart of this vaguenessargument is an attack on ourreasonableness standard," JudgeGoudge said. "If that's not valid, we[judges] would be out of work, notjust in this case but in every case."

Besides criticizing the law as beingtoo vague, the foundation said itviolates children's right to properjudicial process because caregiversare granted authority to punishthem arbitrarily.

Judge Goudge interrupted again:"How could you have a quasi-judicial hearing before aspanking?"

"You can't," Ms. Milne replied."And that is another reason tostrike the section altogether."

On another occasion, JudgeGoudge voiced a concern thatoutlawing spanking would intrudeon citizens' personal lives.

— End —

Pediatrics for Parents Discipline in childrenSeptember 2001 Page 1 of2

Source: Pediatrics for Parents, Sept 2001v19 i9 p4(2)

Title: Discipline in children. (What Parents Want To Know About ...).(Brief Article)

Author: Harry Pellman

Subjects: Corporal punishment — Social aspectsDiscipline of children — TechniqueDiscipline — Social aspectsParents — Conduct of life

Locations: United States

Full Text COPYRIGHT 2001 Pediatrics for Parents, Inc.

Since the year 2000 Census liststhe U.S population of childrenunder age 18 as 72,293,812, it ispossible there are 72,293,812different methods of discipline.

The April, 1998, issue ofPediatrics contained a policystatement on discipline. As youcan imagine, there was quite a bitof disagreement on many issues,especially corporal punishment. Iam sure every parent has a strongopinion on this very controversialtopic.

Some background data oncorporal punishment may shedlight on how their policy wasadopted.

1. 90% of parents in the U.S.report spanking theirchildren.

2. 59% of pediatricians supportthe use of corporalpunishment in at least certainsituations.

3. Of the 44% of parents whouse corporal punishment,half of the time that theparent used corporalpunishment the parentadmitted to "losing it".Eighty-five percent of theparents that "lost it"expressed anger, remorse, or

agitation while punishingtheir children.

4. Some bad news. Spanking ofyoung children is highlycorrelated with continuedspanking of school-aged andadolescent children, and halfof 13- and 14-year-oldscontinue to be hit, an averageof eight times a year.

5. This is highly correlated withaggressive behavior in thesechildren.

6. This is not just a problem oflower socioeconomic classfamilies. Twenty-fivepercent of two-parent,middle class families reportusing corporal punishmentweekly, using an object in35% of episodes, andinflicting lasting marks 5%of the time.

7. Children report receivingsignificant pain at least halfof the time and usuallyexperience anger at the adult.

8. The more children are hit,the more they report anger asadults, and the more they hittheir own children and theirspouses when they becomeparents.

9. Studies show that the more3-to 6-year-olds are hit, theworse the behavior is whenassessed two years later.

10. Parents that report spankingare more likely to use avariety of verbal and otherpunitive methods.

11. When corporal punishmentfails, these parents are morelikely to increase its intensityrather than look foralternative disciplinestrategies.

12. A silver lining. Although93% of parents justifyspanking, 85% say that theywould rather not if they hadan alternative in which theybelieved.

In case it is not clear, I believecorporal punishment is far fromthe ideal type of discipline. It isfrequently done during an act offrustration or anger on the part ofthe parent. There's a lack ofstudies showing it creates betterchildren (and suggests theopposite), and it teaches childrenthat violence is acceptable, atleast under certain circumstances.

So, what's a parent to do?According to the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics, effectivediscipline has three components:

Pediatrics for Parents Discipline in childrenSeptember 2001 Page 2 of2

• Provide a positive,supportive, and lovingrelationship.

• Use positive reinforcement.

• Use time-outs and otheralternatives to spanking andphysical punishment.

Discipline is important. It teacheschildren that there areconsequences for breaking therules. Some common sense isneeded in deciding rules. Forexample, a two-year-old willhave different rules than a five-year-old or ten-year-old. Acceptthe fact that all childrenoccasionally misbehave. Do notmake every infraction into abattle.

All forms of discipline workbetter after the child and parenthave bonded strongly. Dr. EdKristofferson believes that "time-in" is an effective bonding tool ofparent to child and child toparent. This consists of non-verbal touching, hundreds oftimes a day.

Every time you are near yourchild, give him a very briefloving stroke or hug. Important!This touching must be non-verbal. Think about it. Wordsnever perfectly convey themessage you want to give

someone. However, touching andstroking are perfect. After twoweeks or so of time-in, disciplinemethods can be instituted.

In younger children time-outs canbe effective. This usually consistsof removing the child from theimmediate situation for about oneminute per year of age. Aconvenient location for the childis a nearby chair (chairs arealmost everywhere).

A very brief statement introducesthe time-out. For example,"Time-out for hitting." The childis directed to or placed on thedesignated chair. The parentmakes sure the child stays therefor the designated time period(example: 3 minutes for a three-year-old). No conversationoccurs during this period.

When the time out is over, theparent briefly reviews theinfraction and discipline. "Thereason you were in time out wasthat you hit Tommy. I told youhitting is not allowed. Please donot do it again." It is helpful to bea good role model and show yourchild that there are other ways toresolve disputes. Children shouldmake their parents better citizensand visa-versa.

Time-in is also important in olderchildren (and spouses). Children

are less likely to seriouslymisbehavior if they sense a deeplove for them by their parents andobserve moral, ethical, andloving behavior by their parents.What you do is much moreimportant than what you say.Older children can be disciplinedby removing privileges.

As children get older, their peersbecome important influences ontheir behavior. Making sure yourchildren do not fall in with the"bad crowd" is another parentresponsibility.

Some final tips include:

• Keep the rules simple.

• Be consistent. Enforce ruleswith love and firmness.

• Do not deal with frustrationand anger by resorting toviolence.

• Reward good behavior.

For many years successful animaltrainers have shown thatrewarding good behavior andproviding love are much moreeffective training tools thanpunishment. This lesson shouldnot be lost on parents rearingchildren.

Dr. Pellman's column has appeared monthly in Pediatrics for Parents for over 10 years. He's a Board CertifiedPediatrician practicing in Huntington Beach, California, a Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University ofCalifornia, and a Medical Associate of the La Leche League International.

— End —

The Report Newsmagazine Not in OntarioJuly 30, 2001 Page 1 of 2

Source: The Report Newsmagazine, July 30, 2001

Title: Not in Ontario; Authorities seize seven children from a couple for biblical family practices. (kidsplaced in foster homes as parents refuse to say they will no longer spank them)(Brief Article)

Author: Peter Stock

Subjects: Ontario — Laws, regulations, etc.Corporal punishment — CasesChild welfare — CasesChild abuse — CasesMennonites — OntarioDiscipline of children — Laws, regulations, etc.

Statutes: Ontario. Child and Family Services Act 1984

Locations: Ontario

Organizations: Church of God - Cases

Full Text COPYRIGHT 2001 United Western Communications

Small towns in southwesternOntario have had more than theirusual share of media coveragethis summer. Just days after thetown of Walkerton heardtestimony from Premier MikeHarris in the tainted waterinquiry, hordes of reportersdescended on the town of Aylmerto cover another judicialproceeding. This time, apreliminary hearing was beingheld into the controversial seizureby child welfare authorities ofseven children from a traditionalChristian family that sometimesuses a switch for spanking.

Neighbours of the family--whoseidentity cannot legally berevealed--had watched in horrorJuly 4 as more than a dozenofficers and social workersentered the family's homewithout a warrant and forciblycarried out the seven kicking,screaming and crying children,aged six to 14. The local office ofOntario's Family and Children'sServices (FCS) later placed thechildren in temporary fosterhomes.

It would be two days before legalpapers would be served to theparents informing them of apreliminary court hearing on July10. Outside the courthouse thatmorning, dozens of supporters ofthe family gathered to pray andsing hymns to protest the seizure.Inside, Justice Michael O'Deaordered a publication ban on theproceedings and remanded thechildren to foster care until a fullhearing August 9.

Reverend Henry Hildebrandt, thepastor of the family's church, aMennonite denomination knownas the Church of God, says, "Wewere not surprised by this move,but it doesn't change our beliefs.Spare the rod and spoil the child."The seized children attend theChristian school affiliated withthe church. As a result, Rev. Mr.Hildebrandt has first-handknowledge of the seven children,whom he has seen almost dailysince the family immigrated toCanada two years ago fromMexico. "They are happy, wellbehaved and very nice children,"he says. "The family's neighboursall testify to this, too."

Before the raid, social workersexamined the children forevidence of physical abuse. Rev.Mr. Hildebrandt insists noevidence was found of any harmand the seizure is based only onthe parents' refusal to agree not tospank the children. "If everyfamily was treated as this familyhas been," he says, "there wouldbe an awful lot of children takenaway."

Ontario's Child and FamilyServices Act states that welfareauthorities may intervene when"the child has suffered physicalharm [or] when there is a risk thatthe child is likely to sufferphysical harm inflicted by theperson having charge of thechild." The executive director ofthe Elgin County FCS, StevenBailey, explains, "We generallydon't seize kids unless there isevidence it has gone beyondspanking. We would be lookingfor physical harm as evidencedby bruises or welts. Inanimateobjects such as cords, paddles orswitches cannot be used underthe law."

The Report Newsmagazine Not in OntarioJuly 30, 2001 Page 2 of 2

Mr. Bailey concedes that Section43 of the Criminal Code allowsparents to use reasonable force,including inanimate objects, inthe correction of children.However, he says the federal lawdoes not come into play this case."This is not a criminal matter," hesays. "We are proceeding underthe provincial legislation."

It is legislation that has put anincreasing number of familiesinto conflict with the state, saysthe Home School Legal DefenceAssociation, which helps defendfamilies. Dallas Miller, aMedicine Hat lawyer who is the

group's senior counsel, says,"Although this may not be aSection 43 criminal case, the FCSwill have a burden of proof toovercome to demonstrate thatthere has been harm to thesechildren." Since there appears tobe no evidence of past physicalharm to the children, Mr. Milleris suspicious about the seizure."They may have been targeted bysocial workers because of the sizeof their family and because theyare religious," he states."However, they are a Mennonitefamily. Non-violence is theircreed, for goodness sake!"

Regrettably, such cases arecommon. "There has been anincrease in these types ofincidents, particularly in Ontarioand Quebec," Mr. Miller reports."Child-protection workers arebullying parents on a regularbasis and telling them that theycan't spank their children. Thisgovernment-knows-best attitudehas its roots in the UNConvention on the Rights of theChild. Social workers are pushingautonomy rights for children, andthe State is the guarantor of thoserights, so ultimately it has comedown to a battle of the Stateversus the parents."

— End —

Reprt Newsmagazine (BC Edition) Let's Have Government-Approved ‘Safe-Spanking’November 19, 2001 Page 1 of 2

Source: Report Newsmagazine (BC Edition), November 19 2001vol 28 no 22, p .56.

Title: Here's an idea: let's have government-approved 'safe-spanking'.

Author: Mariette Ulrich


Subjects: Corporal punishment

Even if the Anti-SpankingBrigade (ASB) fails in itsongoing Supreme Court bid tocriminalize bum-swatting, don'thold your breath--sooner or laterthey'll drag another haplessparent to a court near you. Theythink outlawing corporalpunishment will make for akinder, safer world--like"childproofing," but on a granderscale. You know all aboutchildproofing: you do it whenyour baby starts crawling, orwhen the grandchildren visit.You put up gates and stash thedangerous stuff so Junior canroam freely and safely. But thereare limits. I wonder at visitorswho (rather than supervise theirbulldozing preschooler) chide mefor failing to remove all thefurniture and plaster over theelectrical outlets. Personalresponsibility is out; taming theenvironment is in.

My home may not qualify aschildproof, but I think it's child-friendly. I keep it as safe aspossible, but acknowledge thereare hazards to avoid, temptationsto overcome and other peoplewith whom one must politelyinteract. This necessitatesteaching my children self-controland correcting inappropriatebehaviour. For children over two,this may mean an occasionalseat-warming, if the infraction isserious enough.

Enter the ASB: they want tomake spanking illegal, on thegrounds that you're not allowed

to strike other adults. I won'tcatalogue the many things youmay do with and to adults thatought not to be attempted withchildren, and vice versa. Sizemay not matter, but age and theability to reason do. Childrenlack wisdom and maturity. We'retalking about people who wait solong to heed the call of naturethat they bounce, howling andclutching themselves, all the wayto the bathroom. Try doing that atthe mall without getting arrested.Their sense of logic runs thus: Isee candy, therefore I am hungry.(It's what makes child-rearingsimultaneously funny andfrustrating.)

While many grown-ups toosometimes exhibit childishbehaviour, it doesn't follow thatchildren possess adult maturity.Popular culture, however, wouldhave us treat children as peers.As one parenting guru says:"Teach them how to think, notwhat to think." I have news: the"how" part is hard-wired. It'snecessary to inculcate "what."Kids must be taught right andwrong based on truth and reason,but all many are getting thesedays is feelings-based peerdialogue.

Much modern discomfort withdiscipline stems not only fromdifferent methods of parenting,but opposing philosophies ofman. Judeo-Christianitymaintains we've inherited a fallennature and are inclined to evil.We need guidance and

redemption. Secular humanistscontend we're naturally good: ifleft to our own whims anddevices, we'll ooze benevolencefrom every pore. They insistviolence and evil come frompatriarchy, into which we weresocialized by our parents, whogot it from their parents, who gotit from their parents, who ... hey,wait a minute, just how far backdoes this go? (Surely not to thosegentle apes from which weevolved.)

Anyway, they insist, peace willreign if we can break the cycle ofviolence. We don't need rules andcorrection, we need to makesociety childproof. We just needto outlaw tobacco, red meat,firearms, Dr. Laura, geneticallymodified food and spanking. Theirony is the ASB wants to protectchildren from their own parents,which is necessary in only a fewtragic cases. I'm not the first tosuggest that making spankingillegal will just turn ordinarymoms and dads into criminals,and children into state spies.

Maybe the ASB should lobby for"safe spanking" instead. Thegovernment could issue paddlesmade of resilient, non-toxic, post-consumer material; childrencould be required to wearelectronic Spank-O-Meter Pants(programmed to dial SocialServices if necessary); andparents could be required to takeseminars on how to spank safely.

Reprt Newsmagazine (BC Edition) Let's Have Government-Approved ‘Safe-Spanking’November 19, 2001 Page 2 of 2

Nah, it sounds too far-fetched.Besides, I doubt if the ASBwould want to monitor allspanking--they're probably okaywith the kind involving whipsand leather. (In fact, HealthCanada funding is available forthe promotion thereof.)

As it happens, we already havespanking guidelines if we wantthem: Judeo-Christian teaching,normal parental love andcommon sense, all of which seemto be in short supply these days.After all, we're not talking aboutbeating, slapping and physicaldegradation. No one is asking for

legalized child abuse. We'retalking about "reasonable force"in correcting unruly children.Outlaw spanking, and otherforms of correction will soonfollow (like "grounding,"speaking sternly or even raisingan eyebrow). If you don't believeme, read the UN Convention onthe Rights of the Child.

It boils down to who's in chargeof minors: is it the childrenthemselves, their parents, orHillary Clinton and her village?If we lose the ability to correctour own children, we've lost theright to teach them according to

our personal convictions. We allwant to live in a state of peaceand harmony, but you can'tmandate it--gun laws, spank lawsand hate laws notwithstanding. Itmust be born in the hearts ofindividuals who have learned tocontrol their less noble passions,occasionally deferring their owngratification for the good ofothers. Sometimes a quick swaton the bottom is necessary toremind Johnny that he's not thecentre of the universe. If theAnti-Spanking Brigade can'tunderstand that, I'll probably seethem in court someday.

— End —

Los Angeles Business Journal Parents May Be Ones Needing SpankingSeptember 10, 2001 Page 1 of 2

Source: Los Angeles Business Journal, Sept 10, 2001v23 i37 p57.

Title: Parents May Be Ones Needing Spanking.(new research says spanking does not injure childrenpsychologically)(Brief Article)(Column)

Author: LEONARD PITTS

Subjects: Child psychology — ResearchChild rearing — TechniqueDiscipline — TechniqueCorporal punishment — Research

Locations: United States

Full Text COPYRIGHT 2001 CBJ, L.P.

I hate to tell you this, but yourkid is spoiled. Mine aren't muchbetter.

That, in essence, is the finding ofa recent Time/CNN poll. Most ofus think most of our kids areoverindulged, materialistic brats.

If you're waiting for me to arguethe point, you're in the wrongcolumn.

No, I only bring it up as contextto talk about a controversial studyreleased late last month. It dealswith corporal punishment --spanking -- and it has outragedthose who oppose the practicewhile re-arming those whosupport it.

It seems that Dr. DianaBaumrind, a psychologist at theUniversity of California atBerkeley, followed 164 middle-class families from the time theirchildren were in preschool untilthey reached their 20s. She foundthat most used some form ofcorporal punishment. She furtherfound that, contrary to whatwe've been told for years, givinga child a mild spanking (definedas openhanded swats on thebackside, arm or legs) does notleave the child scarred for life.

Baumrind, by the way, opposesspanking. Still, it's to her credit asan academic that her researchdraws a distinction otheropponents refuse to. That is, adistinction between the minorpunishments practiced by mostparents who spank and theharsher variants practiced by atiny minority (shaking and blowsto the head or face, for example).

Yes, children whose parents treatthem that severely are, indeed,more likely to be maladjusted bythe time they reach adolescence.And, yes, the parents themselvesare teetering dangerously close tochild abuse.

But does the same hold true incases where corporal punishmentmeans little more than swatting amisbehaving backside? For years,the official consensus from thenation's child-rearing experts wasthat it did. Maybe that's about tochange. We can only hope.

For my money, there was alwayssomething spurious about theorthodoxy that assured us allcorporal punishment, regardlessof severity, was de facto abuse.Nevertheless, we bought into it,with the result being that parentswho admitted to spanking weretreated as primitive dolts andheaped with scorn. They were

encouraged to negotiate withmisbehaving children in order tonurture their self-esteem.

[Graphic omitted]But theorthodoxy was wrong on severalfronts.

In the first place, it's plainlyridiculous -- and offensive -- toequate a child who has beenswatted on the butt with one whohas been stomped, scalded orpunched. In the second, theargument that reasonablecorporal punishment leadsinevitably to mental instabilityalways seemed insupportable andhas just been proven so byBaumrind's study. And in thethird, have you ever tried to"negotiate" with a screaming 5-year-old? It may do wonders forthe child's self-esteem, but, Ipromise, it's going to kill yours.Your sanity, too.

Don't get me wrong, contrary towhat its proponents willsometimes claim, corporalpunishment is not a panacea formisbehavior. Rearing a childrequires not just discipline, butalso humor, love and some luck.

Yet the very fact that spankingmust be exonerated by auniversity study suggests how farafield we've wandered from what

Los Angeles Business Journal Parents May Be Ones Needing SpankingSeptember 10, 2001 Page 2 of 2

used to be the central tenet offamily life: parents in charge.Ultimately, it probably doesn'tmatter whether that tenet isenforced by spanking or othercorrective measures, so long as itis enforced.

I've seen too many childrenbehave with too grand a sense ofentitlement to believe that it is.Heard too many teachers tellhorror stories of dealing with kidsfrom households where parents

are not sovereign, adult authoritynot respected. As a culture, weseem to have forgotten that thefamily is not a democracy, but abenign dictatorship.

Small wonder our kids are brats.

So the pertinent question isn't: Tospank or not to spank? Rather,it's: Who's in charge here? Who'steaching whom? Who is guidingwhom?

The answer used to be obvious.It's obvious no more. And is it sodifficult to see where that roadleads? To understand that it ispossible to be poisoned by self-esteem, and that a spoiled childbecomes a self-centered adult ill-equipped to deal with thevagaries and reversals of life.

Some folks think it's abuse whenyou swat a child's backside. Butmaybe, sometimes, it's abusewhen you don't.

Leonard Pitts is a columnist with the Miami Herald.

— End —

Report Newsmagazine (BC Edition) Conservatives Lost the Anti-Spanking Court ChallengeFebruary 4 2002 Page 1 of 2

Source: Report Newsmagazine (BC Edition)February 4 2002, vol 29 no 3, p 9.

Title: Conservatives actually lost the anti-spanking court challenge, but as usual won't admit it.

Author: Link Byfield

Category: Law

Subjects: Corporal punishment — Laws, legislation, regulations, etc — OntarioDiscipline of childrenChildren — Management and training

Many "family values"conservatives will have beenheartened by last week's courtruling upholding the right ofOntario parents to spank theirchildren. "Thank goodness," theywill have said, "the Ontario Courtof Appeal has upheld the'reasonable force' provision in theCriminal Code allowing parentsand teachers to physically punishkids. It's nice to know there's stillsome common sense left."

How easy we are to please.Admittedly, the ruling could havebeen worse, and we should thankheaven for small mercies. It's alsovenially satisfying to see thesanctimonious, federally fundedanti-spanking Canadian Foundationfor Children, Youth and the Lawleave court spluttering mad aboutnot winning a complete victory.But let's not fool ourselves:Conservatives didn't win either, andthe campaign is far from over.Indeed, this is one of the manysocial questions which make mefeel like we're being slowlystrangled. Or to use a bettermetaphor, the ratchet always turnsagainst us. This time it tightenedonly half a turn instead of a wholeone; but note that it still nevermoves the other way.

All three judges ruled that parentsshould retain their primordial rightto whack their own kids when theysee fit. However, no one may strikea child under the age of two, norany older than two with anythingother than a hand. So it has become

a crime to slap a toddler's fingers ifhe reaches for something he knowsis forbidden. It is now a crime torap any child's knuckles with aruler, or apply a stick to his seat, oreven a wooden spoon; and asanyone knows who has tried, youcannot physically hurt a child olderthan about six by whacking hisbottom with your hand. The oldquasi-biblical adage "spare the rodand spoil the child" is now theequivalent of counselling a crime.To strap a school pupil has becomea criminal offence, as it will now beto bruise a child's bottom, evenwith your hand (and some bruisefrom even a light slap).

So whatever else we may say aboutit, the Ontario ruling is no staunchaffirmation of traditionalinstitutions like woodsheddiscipline, nor a harbinger ofrestored family autonomy. Even ifit stands--and between the Chretiencabinet and the Supreme Court itmay yet collapse — familyauthority has already been almosttotally eroded. Parental paranoiahas been the order of the day for ageneration, and this just amounts tomore of the same.

I sometimes wonder ifconservatives in this country failfrom weak nerve or weak memory.Not so long ago a father could takea defiant, miscreant child up to 16years old and beat him black andblue. He might use a belt, a good-sized stick, a large boot or his fists:different dads had differentparenting styles. True, not every

father did this and not all kidsneeded it; but if a father didn't do itunder certain circumstances, hisfriends, relatives and the localconstabulary would seriously doubthe was head of his house.

Now you would think ifconservatism ever amounted toanything more than a kind ofnostalgic petulance, years ago wewould have proven statistically thatyoung people were actually muchbetter behaved, and far lesssuicidal, when rules were clear andpenalties more painful than they aretoday when rules are suggestionsand consequences areinconsequential. There is no doubtin my mind that any serioussociological comparison wouldshow this, but to my knowledge nosuch study has ever been made.Certainly none has been vigorouslypublicized. Why not? Is it, perhaps,because conservatives don't reallywant to win the argument? Could itbe they only want to whine?

And as penance for our failure, weget an insufferable twit speakingfor the Ontario Children's Aidbureaucracy. He complains not thatspanking is ineffective, but that it'sunfashionable. "There was a time,"he reasons (if that's the right verb),"when we didn't think there wasanything wrong with second-handsmoke, and that we didn't need tobuckle up our seatbelts in cars."Even now, he chides, "as long aspeople think the use of force istheir God-given right, it is less


likely that they will look atalternative modes of parenting."

Where to begin? There is still noscientific reason to think second-hand smoke ever harmed anyone;seatbelt laws are nanny-statism runrampant; and yes, if you read theBible (Proverbs 13:24), you seethat God actually wants children tobe hit when they become defiant.Perhaps this fellow doesn't believein the Judeo-Christian scriptures;but where, then, does he find

authority to say what God does anddoesn't want? In the Gospelaccording to ProgressiveSociology? Well, if we rate his newreligion by its results, I'd say it's apretty stupid one. As for childabuse, any society which abortsone-quarter of its children withouteven benefit of anesthetic has lostits right to lecture anyone.

What seems to paralyzeconservatives is the immensity ofthe various social frauds and

falsehoods that have beenunleashed by the likes of Mr.Bernstein. Their name is Legion:progressive education,compassionate government,religious pluralism, sexualemancipation — you name it.Behind each of these are lies soobvious, and yet so successful, it'seasier to turn away and pretend thatwhenever we don't totally lose abattle, we've somehow won a war.

— End —

Report Newsmagazine (BC Edition) The People Who Should Be on TrialAugust 20, 2001 Page 1 of 2

Source: Report Newsmagazine (BC Edition), August 20 2001vol 28 no 16, p 60.

Title: Surely the people who should be on trial are those Ontario children's social workers.

Author: Ted Byfield


Subjects: Child welfare — OntarioCorporal punishment

If you had to choose the mostbizarre news story of thisgenerally newsless summer, Ithink the best candidate would bethe attempted destruction byofficers of the state at Aylmer,Ont., of an altogether functionalfamily. The apparent facts, asthey emerge, are astoundingindeed.

At this family's tidy, tranquilhome last July 4 there suddenlyappeared in a cavalcade ofautomobiles a contingent ofpolice and social workers. Thefamily's seven children werecarried weeping and bewilderedfrom their home, to be brieflymade wards of the state.

What was the crime? Had thechildren been sexually abused?No. Physically injured? No.Emotionally abused? No again.Imprisoned? Starved? Tortured?None of these things. Did theyoungsters appear persecuted,miserable, ill-behaved? By nomeans. The nearest neighbourdescribed them as "clean, well-dressed, well-behaved, happilyplaying on their bike's and withtoys, and always smiling."

Then why were they seized? Theanswer given by the OntarioChildren's Aid Society is thatthey were routinely disciplinedby spanking. So spanking byparents must be against the law,right? Wrong. Unless it isdeemed to be excessive, it isallowed by the Criminal Code, as

was recently confirmed by theOntario Court of Appeal.

The Aylmer case is now beforethe courts. The children havebeen returned home on conditionthere be no more spanking untilit's settled. Meanwhile thehousehold is being vigorouslymonitored by social workers,which obviously puts it undersevere duress. Whose authorityare these children to respect--thatof their father and mother, or thegovernment?

My bet is on the parents because,as an institution, the family isolder and stronger than the state.However, we must recognizewhat's going on. We arewitnessing the imposition, solelyon bureaucratic initiative (backedby "enlightened" culturalauthority), of a moral dogma:Thou shalt not spank. "Never,never, never spank yourchildren," a family doctorrecently told friends of ours.(Their response was to findanother family doctor.) Twoaspects of this dogma arenoteworthy. First, if such anevent had occurred, say, 40 yearsago, the social workers, not theparents, would have been underpolice investigation, and punitivecivil litigation would surely havefollowed. The Aylmer episoderepresents a complete reversal insocial standards.

Second, what did this revolutionin the upbringing of children seek

to achieve, and has it succeeded?For several decades we have beenassured that spanking childrenteaches them that violence is alegitimate way to controlunacceptable human behaviour.Raised under threat of "violence,"they will be much more prone tobe violent themselves than willchildren guided by counsellingand other non-physical coercions.

So has this resulted in a kinder,gentler generation of juveniles?Plainly no. Our society is nowexperiencing youthful behaviourof practically unprecedentedviolence. Children in seeminglytranquil suburbanneighbourhoods must go toschool armed. Teachers arethreatened. Schools feelcompelled to inaugurate "zero-tolerance" policies on "bullying."Children are wounded or slain byother schoolchildren. In otherwords, the first generation raisedwith little or no spanking isproving to be the most violent wehave yet spawned--precisely theopposite of what was promised.The dogma that is beingferociously enforced by socialagencies is simply a lie, a fraudand a failure.

But should this surprise us?Consider the outcome of otherreforms we have instituted alongwith the prohibition on spanking:

They said if we removedcoercion from education (i.e.,examinations, grade standings,

Report Newsmagazine (BC Edition) The People Who Should Be on TrialAugust 20, 2001 Page 2 of 2

and promotion only on the basisof achievement), our childrenwould come to love learning andwe would be astonished at theircreativity. Instead, performancesags and academic standardsmove steadily downward, whileother nations, using theeducational methods we haveabandoned, ever more assuredlysurpass us.

They said if we removed allseverity from the penal system,crime would disappear and jailsbecome unnecessary. Instead,crimes per capita run at levelsthree or more times what they

were 50 years ago, and our jailsare packed.They said if we eased divorcelaws, and emancipated womenfrom household drudgery andgave them careers instead, a farmore productive and happysociety would emerge. Instead,we have divorce rates running atastronomical levels, and tens ofmillions of single mothers deeperthan ever in drudgery, as theystruggle to raise children whileholding down a job. Meanwhilesome of our most intelligent andproficient women--our bestmothers--produce no children atall.

The record of these reforms, inactual fact, is one of consistentand catastrophic failure, but thevery professionals who should beblowing the whistle by pointingthis out, won't do it. Why?Obviously because theythemselves are implicated in andcommitted to the idiocies that arecausing the problems.

Who should be put on trial is notparents, but the philosophy andpolicies of the state agencies thatpersecute parents. Do they reallyknow what they're doing? If so,why are kids turning out as theyare? It's time they werecompelled to stand and deliver.

— End —


Source: Report Newsmagazine (BC Edition)February 4 2002, vol 29 no 3, p 9.

Title: Conservatives actually lost the anti-spanking court challenge, but as usual won't admit it.

Author: Link Byfield

Category: Law

Subjects: Corporal punishment — Laws, legislation, regulations, etc — OntarioDiscipline of childrenChildren — Management and training

Many "family values"conservatives will have beenheartened by last week's courtruling upholding the right ofOntario parents to spank theirchildren. "Thank goodness," theywill have said, "the Ontario Courtof Appeal has upheld the'reasonable force' provision in theCriminal Code allowing parentsand teachers to physically punishkids. It's nice to know there's stillsome common sense left."

How easy we are to please.Admittedly, the ruling could havebeen worse, and we should thankheaven for small mercies. It's alsovenially satisfying to see thesanctimonious, federally fundedanti-spanking Canadian Foundationfor Children, Youth and the Lawleave court spluttering mad aboutnot winning a complete victory.But let's not fool ourselves:Conservatives didn't win either, andthe campaign is far from over.Indeed, this is one of the manysocial questions which make mefeel like we're being slowlystrangled. Or to use a bettermetaphor, the ratchet always turnsagainst us. This time it tightenedonly half a turn instead of a wholeone; but note that it still nevermoves the other way.

All three judges ruled that parentsshould retain their primordial rightto whack their own kids when theysee fit. However, no one may strikea child under the age of two, norany older than two with anythingother than a hand. So it has become

a crime to slap a toddler's fingers ifhe reaches for something he knowsis forbidden. It is now a crime torap any child's knuckles with aruler, or apply a stick to his seat, oreven a wooden spoon; and asanyone knows who has tried, youcannot physically hurt a child olderthan about six by whacking hisbottom with your hand. The oldquasi-biblical adage "spare the rodand spoil the child" is now theequivalent of counselling a crime.To strap a school pupil has becomea criminal offence, as it will now beto bruise a child's bottom, evenwith your hand (and some bruisefrom even a light slap).

So whatever else we may say aboutit, the Ontario ruling is no staunchaffirmation of traditionalinstitutions like woodsheddiscipline, nor a harbinger ofrestored family autonomy. Even ifit stands--and between the Chretiencabinet and the Supreme Court itmay yet collapse — familyauthority has already been almosttotally eroded. Parental paranoiahas been the order of the day for ageneration, and this just amounts tomore of the same.

I sometimes wonder ifconservatives in this country failfrom weak nerve or weak memory.Not so long ago a father could takea defiant, miscreant child up to 16years old and beat him black andblue. He might use a belt, a good-sized stick, a large boot or his fists:different dads had differentparenting styles. True, not every

father did this and not all kidsneeded it; but if a father didn't do itunder certain circumstances, hisfriends, relatives and the localconstabulary would seriously doubthe was head of his house.

Now you would think ifconservatism ever amounted toanything more than a kind ofnostalgic petulance, years ago wewould have proven statistically thatyoung people were actually muchbetter behaved, and far lesssuicidal, when rules were clear andpenalties more painful than they aretoday when rules are suggestionsand consequences areinconsequential. There is no doubtin my mind that any serioussociological comparison wouldshow this, but to my knowledge nosuch study has ever been made.Certainly none has been vigorouslypublicized. Why not? Is it, perhaps,because conservatives don't reallywant to win the argument? Could itbe they only want to whine?

And as penance for our failure, weget an insufferable twit speakingfor the Ontario Children's Aidbureaucracy. He complains not thatspanking is ineffective, but that it'sunfashionable. "There was a time,"he reasons (if that's the right verb),"when we didn't think there wasanything wrong with second-handsmoke, and that we didn't need tobuckle up our seatbelts in cars."Even now, he chides, "as long aspeople think the use of force istheir God-given right, it is less


likely that they will look atalternative modes of parenting."

Where to begin? There is still noscientific reason to think second-hand smoke ever harmed anyone;seatbelt laws are nanny-statism runrampant; and yes, if you read theBible (Proverbs 13:24), you seethat God actually wants children tobe hit when they become defiant.Perhaps this fellow doesn't believein the Judeo-Christian scriptures;but where, then, does he find

authority to say what God does anddoesn't want? In the Gospelaccording to ProgressiveSociology? Well, if we rate his newreligion by its results, I'd say it's apretty stupid one. As for childabuse, any society which abortsone-quarter of its children withouteven benefit of anesthetic has lostits right to lecture anyone.

What seems to paralyzeconservatives is the immensity ofthe various social frauds and

falsehoods that have beenunleashed by the likes of Mr.Bernstein. Their name is Legion:progressive education,compassionate government,religious pluralism, sexualemancipation — you name it.Behind each of these are lies soobvious, and yet so successful, it'seasier to turn away and pretend thatwhenever we don't totally lose abattle, we've somehow won a war.

— End —

corporal punishment - saskatchewan elocution · pdf filecorporal punishment ... watched, the...

Documents