Top court to rule on 'spanking law' (Canada Recall, SC_of_C sets the trend for SCOTUS).

CNEWS ^ | Jan 24, 2003 | Jim Brown

[gobucks]

OTTAWA (CP) - The Supreme Court of Canada is set to decide whether a parental smack on a childish bottom - a disciplinary measure specifically permitted by federal law for more than a century - is a violation of the Charter of Rights.

The high court has scheduled this Friday as judgment day in a constitutional challenge mounted by children's rights advocates who want the so-called spanking law struck down.

"We're looking forward to the decision," says lawyer Paul Schabas. "It's been a long battle."

Schabas and co-counsel Cheryl Milne represent the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, which began its campaign to outlaw spanking four years ago.

"Hitting people breaks fundamental rights of respect for human dignity and physical integrity," they argued when the case finally reached the country's highest court last June.

"Children are people too."

At issue is Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which in one form or another has been on the books since 1892.

It provides that parents, teachers and other caregivers cannot be found guilty of assault for physically correcting a child - as long as the force they use is "reasonable."

Many have in fact been convicted for going beyond what judges deemed to be reasonable. But opponents say as long as the law remains in force it's an invitation to excess.

"This case is about the right of children not to be hit, a right that in a modern, 21st century democracy should be unquestioned," Schabas told the high court during oral arguments.

He condemned Section 43 as discriminatory, a violation of children's security of the person and a legal green light for cruel and unusual punishment.

The federal Health Department has published brochures advising parents that spanking is not an effective means of discipline and ought to be avoided.

Lawyers for the Justice Department have balked at turning those who ignore the advice into criminals. They say education is a more effective tool than prosecution in most cases.

"The criminal law is a blunt instrument," federal lawyer Roslyn Levine told the court. "Changing the criminal law does not necessarily change attitudes."

Levine also maintained that parents need a "certain limited autonomy" in raising their children and argued the state should not interfere unless discipline crosses the line and becomes abuse.

She urged the nine judges to uphold the law, but invited them to lay down ground rules to guide lower courts.

For example, she noted, most experts agree spanking is unacceptable for children aged under two, or for teenagers.

Using implements other than the open hand, striking children on the face or head and leaving bruises or other lasting injuries should also be beyond the pale, Levine suggested.

Critics say judicial guidelines will do little to protect children at risk from abusive parents - or from well-meaning ones who go too far in the heat of the moment.

Supporting the government in its defence of the law was the Coalition for Family Autonomy, a collection of conservative lobby groups, and the Ontario Teachers Federation.

The teachers say they don't favour corporal punishment, but they fear they could face assault charges merely for physically restraining an unruly student if the law is struck down.

The Ontario Coalition of Children's Aid Societies joined the Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law in challenging Section 43.

The law was upheld in July 2000 by Justice David McCombs of Ontario Superior Court, who said parents and teachers must have some leeway in carrying out their duties.

The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously agreed in January of last year that the law was constitutional, but cautioned that it must be read as allowing only "strictly limited force."

The Supreme Court ruling will be the final legal word.

[gobucks]

First, the obvious: NO WONDER THEY ARE NUTSO UP THERE!!

Lawarence v. Texas ... anyone recall what came before that by a few months up THERE??

First, totally missing is the UN pressure on Canada regarding this. So, they are indeed accepting marching orders.

But worse, is the missing truth: what's the number one way to raise a future life-long liberal? Never, NEVER spank. And, when the pitched screaming demands in the store are bothering everyone else, ignore THEM, and give the poor child IMMEDIATELY what he/she wants.

That's the political agenda behind this upcoming ruling - making more liberals, and setting an INTERNATIONAL example for the fools who buy internationalist legal jumbo that are currently sitting on the SCOTUS.

Maybe, just maybe our legal counterpart to this will be a few more years away. One can hope. (Oh W! Help!!)

[lilylangtree]

Whatever happens there will be the incentive to happening here in the States. I agree with the method of spanking as disciplinary. "Spare the rod spoil the child" is parents downfall.

[genghis]

How arrogant must you be to say something that has been done for millions of years by loving parents is not legal?
Something needs to be done to stop judicial expropriation of power.

[PRND21]

the number one way to raise a future life-long liberal? Never, NEVER spank.

Rubbish.

[Sloth]

"This case is about the right of children not to be hit, a right that in a modern, 21st century democracy should be unquestioned," Schabas told the high court during oral arguments.

Why the #3!! do liberal nitwits always bring up what century it is? Like it was okay to beat kids in 1240 AD, but all of a sudden they have acquired rights due to the mere passage of time?

[NYC GOP Chick]

Did someone say spanking?!

[Dog Gone]

My son was never spanked, and he's about as conservative as can be imagined.

[Constitution Day]

"Hmmm", he said, rubbing his chin thoughtfully.

[Old Sarge]

Ah, here's what we need! Foreign legal precedent for Justice Ruth Rodham Ginsburg to quote.

[gobucks]

Hey, I'm all for learning the secret of how a parent silences a 3 year old who is screaming in a store, and fails to respond to voice commands. Please, by all means, share the wisdom (that evidently exceeds the wisdom provided by Solomon), and if there is a great book, like

HOW TO RAISE THE PERFECT CONSERVATIVE W/O SPANKING -

please what's the title, where's it sold?? Must be a lot better than the Bible I'm guessing. Sheesh!!!!

[nightdriver]

"Many have in fact been convicted for going beyond what judges deemed to be reasonable."

That word, "reasonable," occurs far too often in legal discourse to suit me.

It's purely subjective. What is "reasonable" to one humped-up liberal judge may not be to another. The results are rulings that are arbitrary and capricious.

[End Times Sentinel]

I happen to agree with both of you here.  Personally, my wife and I don't use corporal punishment on either of our kids, a time out or being sent to their rooms works perfectly well.

 

HOWEVER, the idea that some Governmental authority is going to make this decision for me is outrageous!

 

Yet another of the incremental steps to egalitarianism. 

Owl_Eagle

”Guns Before Butter.”

I happen to agree with both of you here.  Personally, my wife and I don't use corporal punishment on either of our kids, a time out or being sent to their rooms works perfectly well.

HOWEVER, the idea that some Governmental authority is going to make this decision for me is outrageous!

Yet another of the incremental steps to egalitarianism. 

[PRND21]

Excellent. Good job.

[PRND21]

Hey, I'm all for learning the secret of how a parent silences a 3 year old who is screaming in a store, and fails to respond to voice commands.

The key is the prior three years.

I'm all for the right to spank, I just don't.

[Dog Gone]

My kid was never a brat who refused to respond to words. I'm sorry that you weren't so lucky.

[erasmus605]

the idea that some Governmental authority is going to make this decision for me is outrageous!

Exactly right! Whatever you happen to think of spanking, do you really think that parents should be arrested for it? Why, why are people so willing to give up their rights? This is scary.

[squarebarb]

Canada is a perfect example of a country run by judicial fiat.

Their judges are appointed by the ruling Liberal party and cannot be unseated.

Their judges can and will and do intrude into every aspect of Canadians' personal lives and there is no way to stop them.

[gobucks]

Well, let's say one's skill sets evolve, shall we? I hardly ever spanked myself when they were little. OTOH, PRND21 and yourself seem to be a mutual admiration society ... but neither of you have offered any written guidelines for those of us out here not privileged to your, ahem, civil discourse.

So, to both of you proud, non-violent parents who are making great conservatives ... what books do you recommend for the less "lucky"? I can read, btw. :)

[gitmo]

Already happening here. I have had DSS in my home questioning my kids about spanking. They've warned me I'm liable for criminal prosecution if I spank my kids. And I'm NOT abusing my kids.

[You Dirty Rats]

If SCOTUS or some other tyrannical organization ever rules that spanking is illegal, then I suggest the following:

Get thousands of mothers w/kids to march on whatever nitwit organization outlaws spanking, and in unison spank all of the kids.

While we're at it, bring back the whack! Back in the 7th grade I got whacked once for talking in studyhall. Hurt for two hours! It did however motivate me to not disrupt studyhall.

Pain goes to the brain!