If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Laughable Canadian.....
........Law "allowing" parents to "spank," if they use "reasonable
force," don't hit in the head or face, not subject infants up through 2 years old, or teens over 16 and over TO ANY KIND OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, and use no instruments of any kind. Could it be more prohibitory and give the state more power? Not likely. That's about all the state needs to make any and all spanking illegal. It was simply a sneaky way of getting there, a nibble at a time. Canadians are being snuck up upon and it will get worse (or better if you are against spanking). The state has fully admitted in the language of this law that what is reasonable is NOT up to the parents any longer, but the sole discretion of the courts. In other words, the line between what is abuse and what is acceptable discipline has been legally declared NOT within the purview of the parents, but resides with the state. Could it be plainer Canadian legislators agree with me....that The Question is in fact unanswerable BEFORE THE FACT? Looks like it, doesn't it. Now here's someone that get's the point. The ONLY way to stop the state from interferring and them deciding case by case if "spanking" was spanking, or it was abuse, is to simply make ALL spanking and other forms of corporal punishment illegal. http://www.slate.com/id/2094704/ " ... Twelve countries-including Sweden, Denmark, and Italy-prohibit corporal punishment altogether. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child condemns most forms of corporal punishment and provides that the "best interests of a child" should always be paramount. Canada had been censured by the commission for permitting spanking. The United States isn't a signatory to the convention-to the delight of conservative groups-many of whom cite Proverbs 13:24 for the proposition that it's a very good idea to hit your kid with a stick. The notion that "the best interests of the child" should be paramount in any legal dispute alarmed Canada's Supreme Court, just as it alarms parents' rights groups who believe that their own rights should trump their children's. Under American law, the best interests of the child analysis only kicks in when parental systems break down-if there is a divorce or abuse-otherwise, parents are assumed to know best. But that is, of course, the sleight of hand that went unrecognized today by the Canadian Supreme Court and that goes unrecognized by the folks in this country who'd like to keep smacking their young: Parents don't have an unfettered right to discipline their kids. The only right they have is to hit their kids just up to some moving target of "reasonableness." You are either for or against spanking. In my experience, the most vocal proponents of spanking seem to be those who claim that "I was whipped with a belt/switch/open palm regularly, and look how great I turned out." That could be an argument for dressing kids up in caps, knickers, and knee socks too. The important legal point is that whether or not you consider your kids to be your property, the courts will step in when you've crossed a line. And that line is decided by courts and legislatures, not by you. Those of you who want the state out of your lives might not like the idea of a broad no-spanking rule. But you should recognize that predictability and certainty in the law are the best ways to hold the state at bay. (the author) Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor." 0:- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A POINTLESS AND STUPID POST BY AN IGNORANT KANER HIGH ON SADISM WROTE The Laughable Canadian.....
CRAWL BACK INTO THE SMELLY HOLE YOU SPAWNED FROM AND LEAVE THIS
GROUP TO ITS INTENDED AUDIENCE. DON'T GO AWAY MAD, JUST GO AWAY. THIS IS NOT YOUR OWN PERSONAL FAUX-AUTHORING PLATFORM. wrote in message oups.com... : .......Law "allowing" parents to "spank," if they use "reasonable : force," don't hit in the head or face, not subject infants up through 2 : years old, or teens over 16 and over TO ANY KIND OF CORPORAL : PUNISHMENT, and use no instruments of any kind. : : Could it be more prohibitory and give the state more power? Not likely. : That's about all the state needs to make any and all spanking illegal. : : It was simply a sneaky way of getting there, a nibble at a time. : Canadians are being snuck up upon and it will get worse (or better if : you are against spanking). : : The state has fully admitted in the language of this law that what is : reasonable is NOT up to the parents any longer, but the sole discretion : of the courts. : : In other words, the line between what is abuse and what is acceptable : discipline has been legally declared NOT within the purview of the : parents, but resides with the state. : : Could it be plainer Canadian legislators agree with me....that The : Question is in fact unanswerable BEFORE THE FACT? Looks like it, : doesn't it. : : Now here's someone that get's the point. The ONLY way to stop the state : from interferring and them deciding case by case if "spanking" was : spanking, or it was abuse, is to simply make ALL spanking and other : forms of corporal punishment illegal. : : http://www.slate.com/id/2094704/ : : " ... Twelve countries-including Sweden, Denmark, and : Italy-prohibit corporal punishment altogether. The U.N. Convention on : the Rights of the Child condemns most forms of corporal punishment and : provides that the "best interests of a child" should always be : paramount. Canada had been censured by the commission for permitting : spanking. The United States isn't a signatory to the convention-to : the delight of conservative groups-many of whom cite Proverbs 13:24 : for the proposition that it's a very good idea to hit your kid with a : stick. : : The notion that "the best interests of the child" should be paramount : in any legal dispute alarmed Canada's Supreme Court, just as it alarms : parents' rights groups who believe that their own rights should trump : their children's. Under American law, the best interests of the child : analysis only kicks in when parental systems break down-if there is a : divorce or abuse-otherwise, parents are assumed to know best. But : that is, of course, the sleight of hand that went unrecognized today by : the Canadian Supreme Court and that goes unrecognized by the folks in : this country who'd like to keep smacking their young: Parents don't : have an unfettered right to discipline their kids. The only right they : have is to hit their kids just up to some moving target of : "reasonableness." : : You are either for or against spanking. In my experience, the most : vocal proponents of spanking seem to be those who claim that "I was : whipped with a belt/switch/open palm regularly, and look how great I : turned out." That could be an argument for dressing kids up in caps, : knickers, and knee socks too. The important legal point is that whether : or not you consider your kids to be your property, the courts will step : in when you've crossed a line. And that line is decided by courts and : legislatures, not by you. Those of you who want the state out of your : lives might not like the idea of a broad no-spanking rule. But you : should recognize that predictability and certainty in the law are the : best ways to hold the state at bay. : : (the author) Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor." : : 0:- : |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Babies and 'gutless' Royal Canadian Mounted Police | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 9 | November 20th 05 10:22 PM |
A 'shocking announcement' - Canadian chiros whining - babies be damned... | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | April 5th 05 09:03 PM |
'COCOA'S' LIE; "THERE IS *NO* MERCURY IN CANADIAN VACCINES" | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 16 | April 4th 05 10:48 PM |
Canadian Court Rethinks Spanking | Hammer | Spanking | 0 | January 25th 04 07:54 PM |
Babies likely don't care that Canada NewsWire is not 'Canadian press' | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | July 16th 03 01:38 AM |