A rchive Date
[ 23-01-2002 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/osvald.html
Latest spanking ruling sets solid guidelines
By SHARON OSVALD -- For the London Free Press
January 22, 2002
Last week, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled to uphold Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which permits parents, teachers and those acting in parents' place to use reasonable force when disciplining a child. The court's rejection of the anti-spanking challenge may have reignited the smouldering debate on corporal punishment, but it did something good too. It ruled responsible parents who believe on rare occasions the most loving and appropriate response is giving their child a light, open-handed spank on the bottom, are not criminals.
I am sadly aware too many children face violence at the hands of their parents and caregivers. I am also sadly aware many parents are too quick to whack and too slow to teach their children proper behaviour. Yet, I was pleased with the verdict because, as the appeal court and the previous, July 2000 ruling indicated, I too find holes in the arguments of those trying to ban the use of "reasonable force."
I'm certain the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law and its supporters truly believe outlawing corporal punishment would better protect children from violent adults, but I disagree with them that Section 43 infringes a child's equality rights under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Yes, children and adults have the same rights to health and safety. But adults and children are not the same. In the real world, children do not arrive self-actualized, self-disciplined and capable of making responsible decisions. That is why an age is set at which people can drive vehicles or drink alcohol. It is in the best interest of the child we place some of their rights under the authority of their parents, just as adults willingly place themselves under the authority of the police and the law.
The appeal court ruling stated "parents must have a protected sphere in which to raise their children" and, at times, along with redirection, time-outs and loss of privileges, "reasonable force" is needed. When adults violate this authority, they will be prosecuted. For example, a Sudbury man was just sentenced to 30 days in jail for using excessive force after leaving bruises while spanking a two-year-old boy last February.
The court of appeal recommended the law set clearer guidelines on the use of corporal punishment, including forbidding the use of belts, rulers, paddles, hitting a teenager or a child under two. These recommendations will have an effect on future prosecutions and assist police and child protection workers in clarifying what will be viewed as abuse in the courts.
One advocacy group says, "Surveys show that over 70 per cent of Canadians have spanked their children and 84 per cent said they did not believe spanking should be made a crime."
If Aylmer was traumatizing, imagine what some of far-reaching consequences of criminalizing all physical discipline would be?
The same applies to teachers. Doug Willard, president of the Canadian Teachers Federation, said recently, "Why should teachers risk criminal prosecution for assault when returning a student to a line, restraining a cognitively challenged student during a physical outburst or removing a disruptive child from the classroom?"
Clarifying Section 43 might be useful, but eliminating it would be disastrous. If child advocates really want to help families, their money and efforts would be better spent on educating parents about alternatives to spanking, child development, anger management and supporting families who are without emotional or financial support.
Toronto lawyer David Brown said it best: "If attitudes are to change about disciplining your kids, that should be done through education. You shouldn't thrust the criminal law sanctions deep into the heart of the family."
Sharon Osvald is a London freelance writer. Her column appears Tuesdays. Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@lfpress.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|