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:-

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:-
: