The Canadian Argument ...

On 5 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Come on! No one here believe Kane??? ;-)

Why haven't they replied and said they don't believe me?

Because I asked them for an affirmative answer, STUPID! Now, who here
believes Kane, SPEAK UP?

Doan

Doan wrote:
On 5 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Come on! No one here believe Kane??? ;-)

Why haven't they replied and said they don't believe me?

Because I asked them for an affirmative answer, STUPID! Now, who here
believes Kane, SPEAK UP?

Doan

Now, who here believes Doan, SPEAK UP?

Think that will make them speak up?

Let's see, little liar.

Calling for Alina, calling for Alina.

R R R R R R R R RR

Do you really think no one can see that you can't handle the material
offered?

Just how stupid to you presume people to be, Doan?

0:-

On 5 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Come on! No one here believe Kane??? ;-)

Why haven't they replied and said they don't believe me?

Because that wasn't the question asked, STUPID!


Doan

Why would they not believe me for an article I posted?

Because you are a proven liar!

What's not to believe?

Your lies!

You slipped another cog, I think.

Trolling again I see. And not creative enough to handle more than one
newsgroup for years, except of course when you put on the Alina sock
and tried to develop a posting credibility string.

Hahaha! Is this the Alina that you claimed to have sent a copy of
the Embry study to? Why don't you post the proof that she was me
again so that everyone can have another laugh at your STUPIDITY?

That was funny. Broke me up when I saw you post to a group about
nursing.

Your STUPIDITY is amazing!

One post, in the middle of a discussion, and then no others?

Yer a liar, Doan and a troll. Nothing more.

Come on! No one here believe Doan??? 0:-

R RRRR R R R R R

Actually, you have been emasculated and no one here believe you! ;-)

Doan


http://tomorrowstrust.ca/?p=176

Tuesday, 2 Jan 2007
Sorry kid, but this spanking is good for you!

by John Borst

There has been a flurry of articles on the issue of the spanking of
children during the fall of 2006. (See here, here and here) The first
is about a study on the topic by a Senate committee, the second is
about a report by the United Nations, and the third is about a man
being charged with assault for spanking the child of his common-law
wife.

Then on December 30, 2006, the National Post editorial page had a
subscribers only article titled "Spanking kids is not a form of
cruelty" in response to the U.N.'s report. Its author, Tal Bachman
is described as a singer-songwriter, however, he self identifies
himself in the article as a "father of eight" who believes that
"issues of corporal punishment" of children are far less important
than "Canada's unconscionably lax punishment of child molesters,
our virtually non-existent abortion laws or our shockingly low age of
sexual consent." Somehow he goes on to work in the issue of how
"hundreds of perfectly viable fetuses are scalded to death each
week" and how in B.C. "thousands of young girls are left vulnerable
to predatory polygamists males" but what these admittedly important
issues have to do with spanking is not explained. Bachman not only
reveals his "social conservativism" but his religious beliefs as
well.

That the religious right should belittle secular society's attempts
to lessen or eliminate "corporal punishment" of children seems
contradictory to a fully formed "life" ethic. The Church teaches
that a person exists "from the moment of conception" to "natural
death" and must be accorded the rights, dignity and respect that all
persons of any age are accorded within that time frame.

One such right and sign of dignity and respect is the right, reinforced
by Canada's own human rights laws, to be safe in their person and
free from harm. If I were to slap a child, in Bachman's code, "the
odd time when a quiet chat fails and a strong warning - via spanking
- may be the best and safest option" as I certainly felt like doing
one time in a Tim Horton's when a young child brazenly abused her
mother and the mother appeared totally bewildered and reacted in all
the wrong ways. The child needed discipline but even had the parent
turned the child over her lap in public and spanked her, she would have
risked a charge of assault and the loss of her off-spring to a
Children's Aid Society. And if that is the case, why is it okay to
"spank" a child behind the closed door of one's home and not in
the public confines of a restaurant? Certainly, striking another adult
in the confines of one's home or place of work is just as much a
criminal offence as it is in public, (both were once legal) but when
doing the same to a child is acceptable, it smacks of a double
standard. Whether a man slaps his wife or child the same issues of
power, authority, domination and possession are at play. Yet as a
society we tolerate striking a defenseless child of any age and not the
adult.

Schools and the abolition of "corporal punishment" are an example
to society that it is possible to completely eliminate "spanking",
in any form, from our grab bag of disciplinary measures. Our schools
have not fallen apart nor become unruly because of it.

Although Canada's Supreme Court did not ban corporal punishment in
2004, from the lexicon of disciplinary techniques available to a
parent, it did draw a line between a brief "swat" in a dangerous
situation and the concept of cruelty/abuse. A teacher can still step in
and forcefully break up a fight between two students or physically
restrain a child from harming another (although even then, a teacher
risks a parental complaint and the ignominy of a Children's Aid
investigation.) Had Bachman and the National Post editors demonstrated
the limits to spanking as a disciplinary method and importance of the
concept of cruelty instead of implying as its headline does, that all
spanking is not cruel then it would have done a service to society and
to the principle of a "life" of dignity and respect for children.

Instead both the author and paper chose to perpetuate the myth that
children are nothing but property, lack the full rights accorded to an
adult citizen of Canada or the same dignity accorded to an adult member
of the Body of Christ regardless of his particular religious
affiliation.

I have lived the experience of seeing a Grade 8 student strapped so
hard by a school principal his wrists were twice cut and bleeding. In
another example a young teen was "spanked" by his father with a
rubber hose (because he punched his sister on the arm) such that he was
bruised from his buttocks to the middle of his back. Or in another case
two Portuguese girls were given a betting by their brother at their
father's command because they chose to wear the school's gym
bloomers uniform during the Catholic school's physical education
class. Today such incidents would have to be reported to the
authorities; at the time of each offence, no such law existed.

Bachman's belittling of government "pompous know-it-alls
...demanding their personal parenting philosophies be accepted as
universal law" is just the kind of attitude that the principal and
parents in the above examples would have used to justify their actions
in the fifties and sixties.

Bachman wants us to believe it is not the "tip of a slippery slope"
to countenance 'spanking". But by using such examples of justified
spanking as a "last ditch effort" to prevent junior from "running
blindly into the street" he is being disingenuous and is providing a
lousy excuse not to look for a more "positive" form of discipline
which is something society has forced teachers to do with its banning
of capital punishment.

It is time parents like Bachman were challenged to do the same. It is
also time for all churches, especially the Catholic Church, which
prides itself on its "life" ethic, to promote and campaign for the
elimination of corporal punishment of children.