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