Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to Allow Parents to Spank Children

@ http://tinyurl.com/yqmul

--
"..and that you may never experience the
humility that the power of the American Government
has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his
native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself."
Blackhawk 1833

Not the Boston Globe, apparently it was the CANADIAN Supreme Court!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...query=spanking
UPDATED AT 1:47 AM EST Saturday, Jan. 31, 2004
Top court sets limits on spanking By KIRK MAKIN From Saturday's
Globe and Mail
Parents can spank or use force on their children provided it is
minimal and not the product of frustration or rage, the Supreme Court
of Canada ruled yesterday.

While the majority of judges were unwilling to prohibit the use of
force altogether, they declared corporal punishment off-limits for
children under the age of 2 and for teenagers. And they outlawed the
use of objects such as rulers or belts, as well as slaps or blows to
the head.

Teachers can no longer use any form of corporal punishment, the court
added, although they may restrain pupils to gain compliance with their
instructions.

The judgment went a long way toward meeting the concerns of critics of
spanking, while at the same time leaving intact a Criminal Code
defence that can be used by parents or teachers charged with assault
who establish they used "reasonable force" on a child.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said the defence will apply only in
cases of "sober, reasoned uses of force that address the actual
behaviour of the child and are designed to restrain, control or
express some symbolic disapproval of his or her behaviour. Degrading,
inhuman or harmful conduct is not protected."

Chief Justice McLachlin said that had the court foreclosed the defence
altogether, teachers could potentially be dragged off to jail and
parents forced into the criminal justice system, "with its attendant
rupture of the family setting."

Opponents of spanking had argued that any exemption is an open
invitation to assault and blatantly discriminates against children.
They expressed disappointment yesterday that the court did not go all
the way.

"If they were going to reduce the defence to these limits, one has to
ask why they didn't just strike it down," said lawyer Paul Schabas,
who represented the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the
Law in the case.

Mr. Schabas speculated that the judges may have been worried that
striking down the law would precipitate a renewed attack on their
judicial activism.

"Today is a sad day for child rights, and we are extremely
disappointed that spanking is not regarded as abuse," said Rita
Karakas, executive director of Save the Children Canada. "Children are
routinely physically abused in almost all societies, which has come to
be regarded as an acceptable response to a child's behaviour."

Her view was shared by two judges, Madam Justice Louise Arbour and
Madam Justice Marie Deschamps, who said the exemption is too broad to
protect such a vulnerable group.

In another split, a member of the majority, Mr. Justice Ian Binnie,
said the exemption should apply to parents, but not to teachers. "The
logic for keeping criminal sanctions out of the schools is much less
compelling than for keeping them out of the home," he said.

Queen's University Professor Nicholas Bala, an expert witness who
testified for the federal government, said the court majority
carefully avoided endorsing or advocating the use of corporal
punishment.

"I think the majority correctly recognized that parents and teachers
need to have a certain degree of discretion," he said. "We don't want
the state — particularly criminal law — to be intruding
into the family in an overly intrusive way."

The constitutional challenge alleged that the exemption under the
Criminal Code charge of assault allows children to be harmed in a way
that adults cannot be. The court heard social science evidence showing
that physical punishment produces no beneficial outcomes for children
apart from short-term compliance.

During the appeal, Mr. Schabas cited several assault acquittals in
recent years that were based on the vague defence, including a man who
bound his 16-year-old sister-in-law naked to a post while
"babysitting" her and then struck her 10 to 12 times with a wooden
paddle.

Ranged against the challengers were teachers and the Department of
Justice, arguing that judicious use of corporal punishment can play an
important role in the school setting and in the home. They said
parents can currently slap lightly or move an erring child, but no
more than that.

Yesterday, Chief Justice McLachlin said the exemption is based not on
a devalued view of a child's worth, but in a concern that charging
parents with assault can ruin lives and break up families — "a
burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any
benefit derived from applying the criminal process."

While children need a safe environment, she said, they must also
depend on parents and teachers for guidance and discipline, to protect
them from harm and to promote their healthy development within
society.

"The force must have been intended to be for educative or corrective
purposes, relating to restraining, controlling or expressing
disapproval of the actual behaviour of a child capable of benefiting
from the correction," Chief Justice McLachlin said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...query=spanking
POSTED AT 1:16 AM EST Saturday, Jan. 31, 2004
Corporal punishment deep rooted By MARK HUME From Saturday's Globe
and Mail
The corporal punishment of children is so widespread and so deeply
rooted in history that spanking might be called the slap heard 'round
the world.

It is practised from Alaska, where the Inupiaq people have believed
for thousands of years that a quick slap is better than a harsh word,
to schools in Botswana in Africa, where teachers argue the way to stop
students from drinking is to whip them publicly.

The physical disciplining of children by parents is endorsed by most
religions and has been found in scriptures since the Old Testament,
which advises: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son."

That sentiment found popular expression as early as the 1600s, when
English poet Samuel Butler summed it up with the memorable line: "Then
spare the rod and spoil the child."

Despite its wide acceptance, spanking has long been debated and is
coming under growing attack, with critics from child-behaviour experts
to the United Nations questioning the practice.

Peter Dudding, director of the Child Welfare League of Canada, said
yesterday that "the evidence is clear in terms of the use of physical
punishment — it's harmful to children."

Scholar George Holden of the University of Texas says in a recent
paper, "Parental use of corporal punishment has been a contentious
child-rearing topic for thousands of years."

Prof. Holden notes that corporal punishment has been outlawed in 11
nations but says he doubts the United States is ready to follow suit.

"Parents' belief in their entitlement to use corporal punishment is
deeply embedded in American history, beliefs about the privacy of the
family and personal freedoms, and attitudes about children and how to
rear them."

He says the reasons underlying parental use of the practice are
complex, including "an instrumental religious reason, an impulsive
reaction, or a lack of knowledge of alternatives."

Cultural practices are a large part of the reason parents spank their
children.

In Alaska, the Inupiaq philosophy includes the belief that a quiet
form of correctionis the best way to discipline a child. It might be
summed up as: Speak softly, but be ready to slap.

A historical Inupiaq cultural profile states. "Yelling at a child too
much would make the child 'deaf' to talk or reasoning as time went on.

"It was also disrespectful to the name and being of the child. A
spanking when necessary was looked on more favourably. A spanking
'hurt the skin', but constant yelling 'hurt the spirit.'."

In Botswana, the independent daily newspaper Mmegi recently reported
on a debate over the appropriate way to deal with a student drinking
problem.

"Our culture is there and we have to be proud of it. Let the whip
crack," said Lesego Koketso, the head of Pastoral Theology at
Mogoditshane Senior Secondary.

Nadine Block, writing in the Humanist, the magazine of the American
Humanist Association, said corporal punishment is a divisive subject.

It's one "that often pits generation against generation and family
member against family member."

Director of the Center for Effective Discipline in the U.S., Ms. Block
is campaigning to have spanking outlawed around the world.

"The strongest and most enduring support for the practice comes from
the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Many fundamentalist,
evangelical and charismatic Protestants use Scripture to justify their
use of corporal punishment to develop obedience and character in
children.

Their position is that God wills and requires it in order to obtain
his blessing and approval; to not physically punish children for
misbehaviour will incur God's wrath," she writes.

On the website of the Antioch Baptist Church in Tennessee is the
observation: "Spanking or whipping is biblical discipline. And, it is
not necessarily the choice of last resort. It is the linchpin of all
biblical child discipline."

Many religions recognize the right of parents to discipline their
children but urge them to find non-violent means.

Buddhism teaches that it is counterproductive and the Hindu religion
does not sanction spanking at any age.

The United Nations is among the organizations that think corporal
punishment should not be used against children under any
circumstances.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors
implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, states
that "legal and social acceptance of physical punishment of children,
in the home and in institutions, is not compatible with the
Convention."

It is illegal for parents or anyone else to spank children in Austria,
Germany, Croatia, Israel, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Latvia,
Norway and Sweden. But in most countries, it is acceptable.

Over the past two decades, surveys have found that in Britain 75 per
cent of mothers admitted to smacking their babies before the age of 1;
in Korea 97 per cent of children had been physically punished by
parents; in India 91 per cent of male and 86 per cent of female
university students said they'd been physically punished as children;
in Chile 80 per cent of parents said they used physical punishment on
their children.


Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2004
Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision that allows parents to
spank their children under certain circumstances?
Yes 13516 votes (83 %)
No 2691 votes (17 %)
Total Votes: 16207

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...query=spanking
TODAY'S PAPER
Part of our culture
By GERALD R. HALL
Monday, February 2, 2004 - Page A12
Nanoose Bay, B.C -- The decision by the Supreme Court to allow parents
to spank their children under certain circumstances was the correct
decision, and has heartened responsible parents across this country.

The traditional family has been and continues to be under attack in
subtle and not so subtle ways, and concerned parents must be prepared
to fight for their children's future. The family is and always has
been the basic unit of society, and it logically follows that the
strength of the nation is directly related to the strength of our
families. Parents need to ensure that our elected representatives
understand clearly where the majority stand on these important social
issues, and vote for those who will uphold and defend their views.


By KENNETH J. ZUCKER
Psychologist-in-Chief, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Toronto
Monday, February 2, 2004 - Page A12
Toronto -- The Supreme Court ruling on spanking makes brilliant
developmental sense.
Why the lower boundary of two? To combat the terrible twos, of course.
Why the upper boundary of 13? Well, by puberty, the kid will be big
enough and strong enough to strike back. Brilliant.

Toronto, Ontario paper

And one recent US poll admitted that 94% of parents admit to spanking their
kids at one time.

Of course, I predicted that the Supreme Court of Canada could not disempower
parents nor families by removing the option of spanking.

After all, the Justices had probably ALL been physicially punished at one time.

If not at home, possibly at religious school.

(Greg Hanson) wrote:
Not the Boston Globe, apparently it was the CANADIAN Supreme Court!

Thanks Greg. Must have had a case Of New England on the brain. (-:
free.
(way to go Pats!)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl....wspank31/BNSt
ory/Front/?query=spanking UPDATED AT 1:47 AM EST Saturday, Jan. 31, 2004
Top court sets limits on spanking By KIRK MAKIN From Saturday's
Globe and Mail
Parents can spank or use force on their children provided it is
minimal and not the product of frustration or rage, the Supreme Court
of Canada ruled yesterday.

While the majority of judges were unwilling to prohibit the use of
force altogether, they declared corporal punishment off-limits for
children under the age of 2 and for teenagers. And they outlawed the
use of objects such as rulers or belts, as well as slaps or blows to
the head.

Teachers can no longer use any form of corporal punishment, the court
added, although they may restrain pupils to gain compliance with their
instructions.

The judgment went a long way toward meeting the concerns of critics of
spanking, while at the same time leaving intact a Criminal Code
defence that can be used by parents or teachers charged with assault
who establish they used "reasonable force" on a child.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said the defence will apply only in
cases of "sober, reasoned uses of force that address the actual
behaviour of the child and are designed to restrain, control or
express some symbolic disapproval of his or her behaviour. Degrading,
inhuman or harmful conduct is not protected."

Chief Justice McLachlin said that had the court foreclosed the defence
altogether, teachers could potentially be dragged off to jail and
parents forced into the criminal justice system, "with its attendant
rupture of the family setting."

Opponents of spanking had argued that any exemption is an open
invitation to assault and blatantly discriminates against children.
They expressed disappointment yesterday that the court did not go all
the way.

"If they were going to reduce the defence to these limits, one has to
ask why they didn't just strike it down," said lawyer Paul Schabas,
who represented the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the
Law in the case.

Mr. Schabas speculated that the judges may have been worried that
striking down the law would precipitate a renewed attack on their
judicial activism.

"Today is a sad day for child rights, and we are extremely
disappointed that spanking is not regarded as abuse," said Rita
Karakas, executive director of Save the Children Canada. "Children are
routinely physically abused in almost all societies, which has come to
be regarded as an acceptable response to a child's behaviour."

Her view was shared by two judges, Madam Justice Louise Arbour and
Madam Justice Marie Deschamps, who said the exemption is too broad to
protect such a vulnerable group.

In another split, a member of the majority, Mr. Justice Ian Binnie,
said the exemption should apply to parents, but not to teachers. "The
logic for keeping criminal sanctions out of the schools is much less
compelling than for keeping them out of the home," he said.

Queen's University Professor Nicholas Bala, an expert witness who
testified for the federal government, said the court majority
carefully avoided endorsing or advocating the use of corporal
punishment.

"I think the majority correctly recognized that parents and teachers
need to have a certain degree of discretion," he said. "We don't want
the state — particularly criminal law — to be intruding
into the family in an overly intrusive way."

The constitutional challenge alleged that the exemption under the
Criminal Code charge of assault allows children to be harmed in a way
that adults cannot be. The court heard social science evidence showing
that physical punishment produces no beneficial outcomes for children
apart from short-term compliance.

During the appeal, Mr. Schabas cited several assault acquittals in
recent years that were based on the vague defence, including a man who
bound his 16-year-old sister-in-law naked to a post while
"babysitting" her and then struck her 10 to 12 times with a wooden
paddle.

Ranged against the challengers were teachers and the Department of
Justice, arguing that judicious use of corporal punishment can play an
important role in the school setting and in the home. They said
parents can currently slap lightly or move an erring child, but no
more than that.

Yesterday, Chief Justice McLachlin said the exemption is based not on
a devalued view of a child's worth, but in a concern that charging
parents with assault can ruin lives and break up families — "a
burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any
benefit derived from applying the criminal process."

While children need a safe environment, she said, they must also
depend on parents and teachers for guidance and discipline, to protect
them from harm and to promote their healthy development within
society.

"The force must have been intended to be for educative or corrective
purposes, relating to restraining, controlling or expressing
disapproval of the actual behaviour of a child capable of benefiting
from the correction," Chief Justice McLachlin said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl....wspank2231/BN
Story/Entertainment/?query=spanking POSTED AT 1:16 AM EST Saturday, Jan.
31, 2004 Corporal punishment deep rooted By MARK HUME From Saturday's
Globe and Mail
The corporal punishment of children is so widespread and so deeply
rooted in history that spanking might be called the slap heard 'round
the world.

It is practised from Alaska, where the Inupiaq people have believed
for thousands of years that a quick slap is better than a harsh word,
to schools in Botswana in Africa, where teachers argue the way to stop
students from drinking is to whip them publicly.

The physical disciplining of children by parents is endorsed by most
religions and has been found in scriptures since the Old Testament,
which advises: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son."

That sentiment found popular expression as early as the 1600s, when
English poet Samuel Butler summed it up with the memorable line: "Then
spare the rod and spoil the child."

Despite its wide acceptance, spanking has long been debated and is
coming under growing attack, with critics from child-behaviour experts
to the United Nations questioning the practice.

Peter Dudding, director of the Child Welfare League of Canada, said
yesterday that "the evidence is clear in terms of the use of physical
punishment — it's harmful to children."

Scholar George Holden of the University of Texas says in a recent
paper, "Parental use of corporal punishment has been a contentious
child-rearing topic for thousands of years."

Prof. Holden notes that corporal punishment has been outlawed in 11
nations but says he doubts the United States is ready to follow suit.

"Parents' belief in their entitlement to use corporal punishment is
deeply embedded in American history, beliefs about the privacy of the
family and personal freedoms, and attitudes about children and how to
rear them."

He says the reasons underlying parental use of the practice are
complex, including "an instrumental religious reason, an impulsive
reaction, or a lack of knowledge of alternatives."

Cultural practices are a large part of the reason parents spank their
children.

In Alaska, the Inupiaq philosophy includes the belief that a quiet
form of correctionis the best way to discipline a child. It might be
summed up as: Speak softly, but be ready to slap.

A historical Inupiaq cultural profile states. "Yelling at a child too
much would make the child 'deaf' to talk or reasoning as time went on.

"It was also disrespectful to the name and being of the child. A
spanking when necessary was looked on more favourably. A spanking
'hurt the skin', but constant yelling 'hurt the spirit.'."

In Botswana, the independent daily newspaper Mmegi recently reported
on a debate over the appropriate way to deal with a student drinking
problem.

"Our culture is there and we have to be proud of it. Let the whip
crack," said Lesego Koketso, the head of Pastoral Theology at
Mogoditshane Senior Secondary.

Nadine Block, writing in the Humanist, the magazine of the American
Humanist Association, said corporal punishment is a divisive subject.

It's one "that often pits generation against generation and family
member against family member."

Director of the Center for Effective Discipline in the U.S., Ms. Block
is campaigning to have spanking outlawed around the world.

"The strongest and most enduring support for the practice comes from
the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Many fundamentalist,
evangelical and charismatic Protestants use Scripture to justify their
use of corporal punishment to develop obedience and character in
children.

Their position is that God wills and requires it in order to obtain
his blessing and approval; to not physically punish children for
misbehaviour will incur God's wrath," she writes.

On the website of the Antioch Baptist Church in Tennessee is the
observation: "Spanking or whipping is biblical discipline. And, it is
not necessarily the choice of last resort. It is the linchpin of all
biblical child discipline."

Many religions recognize the right of parents to discipline their
children but urge them to find non-violent means.

Buddhism teaches that it is counterproductive and the Hindu religion
does not sanction spanking at any age.

The United Nations is among the organizations that think corporal
punishment should not be used against children under any
circumstances.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors
implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, states
that "legal and social acceptance of physical punishment of children,
in the home and in institutions, is not compatible with the
Convention."

It is illegal for parents or anyone else to spank children in Austria,
Germany, Croatia, Israel, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Latvia,
Norway and Sweden. But in most countries, it is acceptable.

Over the past two decades, surveys have found that in Britain 75 per
cent of mothers admitted to smacking their babies before the age of 1;
in Korea 97 per cent of children had been physically punished by
parents; in India 91 per cent of male and 86 per cent of female
university students said they'd been physically punished as children;
in Chile 80 per cent of parents said they used physical punishment on
their children.

Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2004
Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision that allows parents to
spank their children under certain circumstances?
Yes 13516 votes (83 %)
No 2691 votes (17 %)
Total Votes: 16207

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...LAC/20040202/C
OLETS02-3//?query=spanking TODAY'S PAPER
Part of our culture
By GERALD R. HALL
Monday, February 2, 2004 - Page A12
Nanoose Bay, B.C -- The decision by the Supreme Court to allow parents
to spank their children under certain circumstances was the correct
decision, and has heartened responsible parents across this country.

The traditional family has been and continues to be under attack in
subtle and not so subtle ways, and concerned parents must be prepared
to fight for their children's future. The family is and always has
been the basic unit of society, and it logically follows that the
strength of the nation is directly related to the strength of our
families. Parents need to ensure that our elected representatives
understand clearly where the majority stand on these important social
issues, and vote for those who will uphold and defend their views.

By KENNETH J. ZUCKER
Psychologist-in-Chief, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Toronto
Monday, February 2, 2004 - Page A12
Toronto -- The Supreme Court ruling on spanking makes brilliant
developmental sense.
Why the lower boundary of two? To combat the terrible twos, of course.
Why the upper boundary of 13? Well, by puberty, the kid will be big
enough and strong enough to strike back. Brilliant.

--
"..and that you may never experience the
humility that the power of the American Government
has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his
native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself."
Blackhawk 1833

(Greg Hanson) wrote:
....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...spankingPOSTED AT 1:16 AM EST Saturday, Jan. 31, 2004
Corporal punishment deep rooted By MARK HUME From Saturday's Globe
and Mail
The corporal punishment of children is so widespread and so deeply
rooted in history that spanking might be called the slap heard 'round
the world.

I'm snipping much of this interesting article, to get at one section
of it which is outrageously wrong. Given even one reference which
is so grievously in error, it makes one wonder about the credibility
of the entire article.

It is practised from Alaska, where the Inupiaq people have believed

It is indeed practiced in Alaska, even by Inupiat[1] people.
However, it was brought to Alaska by Europeans. To my knowledge
*none* of the Native cultures in Alaska, and most *certainly*
not the Inupiat, traditionally spanked children.

[1] Inupiaq is the language they speak, or refers to one single
individual, while Inupiat is the plural which refers to them all
as a group.

for thousands of years that a quick slap is better than a harsh word,
to schools in Botswana in Africa, where teachers argue the way to stop
students from drinking is to whip them publicly.

I can't speak to Botswana Africa. I've never been there. But
let me tell you from personal experience that Eskimos simply did
*not* traditionally believe in either harsh verbal or harsh
physical interaction with a child, and for much the same
reasons.

My personal experience is that my children and grandchildren are
all very traditional Yup'ik Eskimos. (I am the only non-Eskimo
in my immediate family.)

Cultural practices are a large part of the reason parents spank their
children.

In Alaska, the Inupiaq philosophy includes the belief that a quiet
form of correctionis the best way to discipline a child. It might be

True.

summed up as: Speak softly, but be ready to slap.

False.

A historical Inupiaq cultural profile states. "Yelling at a child too
much would make the child 'deaf' to talk or reasoning as time went on.

True. The same is true of hitting children. An *absolute* no no!

"It was also disrespectful to the name and being of the child. A
spanking when necessary was looked on more favourably. A spanking
'hurt the skin', but constant yelling 'hurt the spirit.'."

Bull****. It's just like hand shaking. The typical Western
concept of an "honest" hand shake is a "firm" grip, perhaps even
squeezing the other person's hand enough to demonstrate superior
strength. Eskimos find that to highly insulting, because it is
a demonstration of disrespect.

The same would be true of spanking a child or yelling at a
child. The difference, however, is that the *child* is someone
you *must* respect if you, and the child, are to be able to
function in a real world!

The "real world" to an Eskimo has a very complex social
structure that is engaged constantly with a very complex
spiritual structure. Harmony between the two is necessary for
even the most simple daily needs, such as obtaining food to eat
(never mind the long term needs, such as good weather, good
health, etc. etc.).

Each child is special, and is named after a recently departed
person whose memory the parents wish to preserve. In a way, the
child becomes the embodiment of that person. They are treated
as if they *are* that person. Hence, unless they would have hit
old grandpa Mike for being feeble and spilling his milk when he
was 92 years old and dying, they sure the heck aren't going to
be slapping his spirit that, in their mind, exists in their
child named Mike.

They don't holler at him either. And they don't play games with
who has the strongest grip with him either. Instead they treat
him (and he is expected to act) as if he is as old and as wise
as 92 year old Mike was.

It is a *wonderful* way to raise children. The child grows up
feeling responsible for his own actions...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...
Not the Boston Globe, apparently it was the CANADIAN Supreme Court!


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...query=spanking
UPDATED AT 1:47 AM EST Saturday, Jan. 31, 2004
Top court sets limits on spanking By KIRK MAKIN From Saturday's
Globe and Mail
Parents can spank or use force on their children provided it is
minimal and not the product of frustration or rage, the Supreme Court
of Canada ruled yesterday.

While the majority of judges were unwilling to prohibit the use of
force altogether, they declared corporal punishment off-limits for
children under the age of 2 and for teenagers. And they outlawed the
use of objects such as rulers or belts, as well as slaps or blows to
the head.

Teachers can no longer use any form of corporal punishment, the court
added, although they may restrain pupils to gain compliance with their
instructions.

The judgment went a long way toward meeting the concerns of critics of
spanking, while at the same time leaving intact a Criminal Code
defence that can be used by parents or teachers charged with assault
who establish they used "reasonable force" on a child.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said the defence will apply only in
cases of "sober, reasoned uses of force that address the actual
behaviour of the child and are designed to restrain, control or
express some symbolic disapproval of his or her behaviour. Degrading,
inhuman or harmful conduct is not protected."

Chief Justice McLachlin said that had the court foreclosed the defence
altogether, teachers could potentially be dragged off to jail and
parents forced into the criminal justice system, "with its attendant
rupture of the family setting."

Opponents of spanking had argued that any exemption is an open
invitation to assault and blatantly discriminates against children.
They expressed disappointment yesterday that the court did not go all
the way.

"If they were going to reduce the defence to these limits, one has to
ask why they didn't just strike it down," said lawyer Paul Schabas,
who represented the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the
Law in the case.

Mr. Schabas speculated that the judges may have been worried that
striking down the law would precipitate a renewed attack on their
judicial activism.

"Today is a sad day for child rights, and we are extremely
disappointed that spanking is not regarded as abuse," said Rita
Karakas, executive director of Save the Children Canada. "Children are
routinely physically abused in almost all societies, which has come to
be regarded as an acceptable response to a child's behaviour."

Her view was shared by two judges, Madam Justice Louise Arbour and
Madam Justice Marie Deschamps, who said the exemption is too broad to
protect such a vulnerable group.

In another split, a member of the majority, Mr. Justice Ian Binnie,
said the exemption should apply to parents, but not to teachers. "The
logic for keeping criminal sanctions out of the schools is much less
compelling than for keeping them out of the home," he said.

Queen's University Professor Nicholas Bala, an expert witness who
testified for the federal government, said the court majority
carefully avoided endorsing or advocating the use of corporal
punishment.

"I think the majority correctly recognized that parents and teachers
need to have a certain degree of discretion," he said. "We don't want
the state — particularly criminal law — to be intruding
into the family in an overly intrusive way."

The constitutional challenge alleged that the exemption under the
Criminal Code charge of assault allows children to be harmed in a way
that adults cannot be. The court heard social science evidence showing
that physical punishment produces no beneficial outcomes for children
apart from short-term compliance.

During the appeal, Mr. Schabas cited several assault acquittals in
recent years that were based on the vague defence, including a man who
bound his 16-year-old sister-in-law naked to a post while
"babysitting" her and then struck her 10 to 12 times with a wooden
paddle.

Once again, we see the extreme being carted out to justify a very illogical
opinon. An incident such as being bound to a post, naked, and then
spanked... spanked?...hardly fits what most perceive a spanking to be.
Spanking, in the case cited... seems to prevail over being bound to a post
and stripped naked. Of course, in the minds of anti-spankers there is
nothing so important as spanking.

bobb


Ranged against the challengers were teachers and the Department of
Justice, arguing that judicious use of corporal punishment can play an
important role in the school setting and in the home. They said
parents can currently slap lightly or move an erring child, but no
more than that.

Yesterday, Chief Justice McLachlin said the exemption is based not on
a devalued view of a child's worth, but in a concern that charging
parents with assault can ruin lives and break up families — "a
burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any
benefit derived from applying the criminal process."

While children need a safe environment, she said, they must also
depend on parents and teachers for guidance and discipline, to protect
them from harm and to promote their healthy development within
society.

"The force must have been intended to be for educative or corrective
purposes, relating to restraining, controlling or expressing
disapproval of the actual behaviour of a child capable of benefiting
from the correction," Chief Justice McLachlin said.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...query=spanking
POSTED AT 1:16 AM EST Saturday, Jan. 31, 2004
Corporal punishment deep rooted By MARK HUME From Saturday's Globe
and Mail
The corporal punishment of children is so widespread and so deeply
rooted in history that spanking might be called the slap heard 'round
the world.

It is practised from Alaska, where the Inupiaq people have believed
for thousands of years that a quick slap is better than a harsh word,
to schools in Botswana in Africa, where teachers argue the way to stop
students from drinking is to whip them publicly.

The physical disciplining of children by parents is endorsed by most
religions and has been found in scriptures since the Old Testament,
which advises: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son."

That sentiment found popular expression as early as the 1600s, when
English poet Samuel Butler summed it up with the memorable line: "Then
spare the rod and spoil the child."

Despite its wide acceptance, spanking has long been debated and is
coming under growing attack, with critics from child-behaviour experts
to the United Nations questioning the practice.

Peter Dudding, director of the Child Welfare League of Canada, said
yesterday that "the evidence is clear in terms of the use of physical
punishment — it's harmful to children."

Scholar George Holden of the University of Texas says in a recent
paper, "Parental use of corporal punishment has been a contentious
child-rearing topic for thousands of years."

Prof. Holden notes that corporal punishment has been outlawed in 11
nations but says he doubts the United States is ready to follow suit.

"Parents' belief in their entitlement to use corporal punishment is
deeply embedded in American history, beliefs about the privacy of the
family and personal freedoms, and attitudes about children and how to
rear them."

He says the reasons underlying parental use of the practice are
complex, including "an instrumental religious reason, an impulsive
reaction, or a lack of knowledge of alternatives."

Cultural practices are a large part of the reason parents spank their
children.

In Alaska, the Inupiaq philosophy includes the belief that a quiet
form of correctionis the best way to discipline a child. It might be
summed up as: Speak softly, but be ready to slap.

A historical Inupiaq cultural profile states. "Yelling at a child too
much would make the child 'deaf' to talk or reasoning as time went on.

"It was also disrespectful to the name and being of the child. A
spanking when necessary was looked on more favourably. A spanking
'hurt the skin', but constant yelling 'hurt the spirit.'."

In Botswana, the independent daily newspaper Mmegi recently reported
on a debate over the appropriate way to deal with a student drinking
problem.

"Our culture is there and we have to be proud of it. Let the whip
crack," said Lesego Koketso, the head of Pastoral Theology at
Mogoditshane Senior Secondary.

Nadine Block, writing in the Humanist, the magazine of the American
Humanist Association, said corporal punishment is a divisive subject.

It's one "that often pits generation against generation and family
member against family member."

Director of the Center for Effective Discipline in the U.S., Ms. Block
is campaigning to have spanking outlawed around the world.

"The strongest and most enduring support for the practice comes from
the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Many fundamentalist,
evangelical and charismatic Protestants use Scripture to justify their
use of corporal punishment to develop obedience and character in
children.

Their position is that God wills and requires it in order to obtain
his blessing and approval; to not physically punish children for
misbehaviour will incur God's wrath," she writes.

On the website of the Antioch Baptist Church in Tennessee is the
observation: "Spanking or whipping is biblical discipline. And, it is
not necessarily the choice of last resort. It is the linchpin of all
biblical child discipline."

Many religions recognize the right of parents to discipline their
children but urge them to find non-violent means.

Buddhism teaches that it is counterproductive and the Hindu religion
does not sanction spanking at any age.

The United Nations is among the organizations that think corporal
punishment should not be used against children under any
circumstances.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors
implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, states
that "legal and social acceptance of physical punishment of children,
in the home and in institutions, is not compatible with the
Convention."

It is illegal for parents or anyone else to spank children in Austria,
Germany, Croatia, Israel, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Latvia,
Norway and Sweden. But in most countries, it is acceptable.

Over the past two decades, surveys have found that in Britain 75 per
cent of mothers admitted to smacking their babies before the age of 1;
in Korea 97 per cent of children had been physically punished by
parents; in India 91 per cent of male and 86 per cent of female
university students said they'd been physically punished as children;
in Chile 80 per cent of parents said they used physical punishment on
their children.


Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2004
Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision that allows parents to
spank their children under certain circumstances?
Yes 13516 votes (83 %)
No 2691 votes (17 %)
Total Votes: 16207


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...query=spanking
TODAY'S PAPER
Part of our culture
By GERALD R. HALL
Monday, February 2, 2004 - Page A12
Nanoose Bay, B.C -- The decision by the Supreme Court to allow parents
to spank their children under certain circumstances was the correct
decision, and has heartened responsible parents across this country.

The traditional family has been and continues to be under attack in
subtle and not so subtle ways, and concerned parents must be prepared
to fight for their children's future. The family is and always has
been the basic unit of society, and it logically follows that the
strength of the nation is directly related to the strength of our
families. Parents need to ensure that our elected representatives
understand clearly where the majority stand on these important social
issues, and vote for those who will uphold and defend their views.


By KENNETH J. ZUCKER
Psychologist-in-Chief, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Toronto
Monday, February 2, 2004 - Page A12
Toronto -- The Supreme Court ruling on spanking makes brilliant
developmental sense.
Why the lower boundary of two? To combat the terrible twos, of course.
Why the upper boundary of 13? Well, by puberty, the kid will be big
enough and strong enough to strike back. Brilliant.

Floyd wrote....
It is a *wonderful* way to raise children. The child grows up
feeling responsible for his own actions...

Probably the most important sentence ever..."The child grows up feeling
responsible for his own actions..." and so often over-looked. It should be
repeated over.. and over.. and over.

bobb


--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

absolutely!

Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision that allows parents to spank
their children under certain circumstances?


Yes
13516 votes (83 %)

No
2691 votes (17 %)


"nospam cpswatchlive.com" familyfree@ wrote in message
...
@ http://tinyurl.com/yqmul

--
"..and that you may never experience the
humility that the power of the American Government
has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his
native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself."
Blackhawk 1833

Fern5827 wrote:
And one recent US poll admitted that 94% of parents admit to spanking their
kids at one time.

And what was the recent time, and what was the poll? How do you define
recent? Did you read the poll? Of course not. You are spouting what
you seem to remember from a ng post.

Of course, I predicted that the Supreme Court of Canada could not disempower
parents nor families by removing the option of spanking.

Fern, the omniscient! If we could only get you at the race track!

After all, the Justices had probably ALL been physicially punished at one time.

Well, there you go. If the Justices had "probably ALL been physically
punished at one time" there is no reason to expect anything different.
Hitler had also been physically punished. Hmmm.....do you like his
accomplishments? (Grin)

If not at home, possibly at religious school.

Oh, at a religious school. That makes it all better, Fern.

And this is a woman (?) who wants credibility in discussing the
treatment, educating, and and parenting of little children.

We can celebrate the loss of her children, and pray they were raised by
individuals smarter, kinder, and with more parenting skills than Fern
has exhibited in the last five years of her involvement on this ng.

LaVonne