The worm turns Canada keeps families in charge
 

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

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

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


newsgroup alt support child protective services.

http://www.familyrightsassociation.com OR

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

The worm turns Canada keeps families in charge
 

On 15 Feb 2004 14:52:54 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still consider this a victory for your side, Fern?



--

The virtue most often rewarded is patience.
-Ivan Gowch

The worm turns Canada keeps families in charge
 

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

Doan

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Ivan Gowch wrote:

On 15 Feb 2004 14:52:54 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still consider this a victory for your side, Fern?



--

The virtue most often rewarded is patience.
-Ivan Gowch

The worm turns Canada keeps families in charge
 

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:23:41 -0800, Doan wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

== Give parents better
==alternatives

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

== and spanking will wither on its own.

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

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

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

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

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

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






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