Is JT really going to ban spanking?

[Boges]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/12/21/liberal-government-commits-to-repealing-spanking-law.html

OTTAWA—The Liberal government plans to repeal a law that protects parents who include spanking in their disciplinary toolkits, which child advocates say would send a strong message that physical punishment — even when well-intentioned — is harmful to children.

“Laws can either support public-health messages or laws can undercut public health messages,” said Ron Ensom, a social worker who is a consultant and researcher in the field of child protection.

A spokesman for Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould confirmed Monday the government is including the repeal of Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which protects parents — and to a lesser extent, schoolteachers — who use “reasonable” physical force against children as part of its greater pledge to implement all 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

“However, at this point, we cannot speculate on potential legislative or policy approaches to address this issue,” spokesman Christian Girouard wrote in an email Monday.

Those who have been pushing the federal government to repeal Section 43 — a move they say would bring Canada in line with its responsibilities under the Untied Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child — welcomed the plan as long overdue.

“It is not a radical thing to say that in a society where we don’t hit people, we also don’t hit children,” said Mary Birdsell, executive director of Justice for Children and Youth, a non-profit legal aid clinic in Toronto.

Great! Criminalizing "reasonable" discipline of children. Child Abuse is already illegal in Canada, this will just prove to ruin families if a parent is charged for "reasonably" physically correcting a child's behaviour.

How does a commission dealing with Residential Schools have any influence over how a parent disciplines their child?

This also targets minority families far more than white families as physical discipline is a cultural practice more than anything. There was a thread I started a year or two ago about a father that skated after he slapped his daughter in the face killing her. Member cybercoma defended the decision because of the spanking law. So I guess that'll be done with after JT blinding accepts all recommendations.

[eyeball]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/12/21/liberal-government-commits-to-repealing-spanking-law.html

How does a commission dealing with Residential Schools have any influence over how a parent disciplines their child?

When it paints a nation that took responsibility for disciplining people's children into a corner.

[Boges]

When it paints a nation that took responsibility for disciplining people's children into a corner.

I don't believe the Residential School's and a parent's ability to "reasonably" discipline their child is in any way comparable. What if the commission recommended that every man, woman and child pay $75 of reparation to First Nations community.

[Bryan]

A spokesman for Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould confirmed Monday the government is including the repeal of Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which protects parents — and to a lesser extent, schoolteachers — who use “reasonable” physical force against children

That's the Liberal party in a nutshell. They gravitate to the opposite of whatever is reasonable.

[eyeball]

@ Boges, I'm not commenting on the comparability, all I'm saying is that the commission's recommendations painted the government into a corner. Now it falls on Trudeau to take responsibility for resolving the dilemma. It's not his fault it's just his job.

What if the commission recommended that every man, woman and child pay $75 of reparation to First Nations community.

Is that all it would take?

Edited December 23, 2015 by eyeball

[Boges]

@ Boges, I'm not commenting on the comparability, all I'm saying is that the commission's recommendations painted the government into a corner. Now it falls on Trudeau to take responsibility for resolving the dilemma. It's not his fault it's just his job.

Is that all it would take?

Does banning a spanking law solve that problem? Will the plight of First Nations be better now that spanking will be banned for everyone. I see this as a way to create more criminals. Can't charge people for using pot, why not for parents who spank?

[eyeball]

Does banning a spanking law solve that problem? Will the plight of First Nations be better now that spanking will be banned for everyone. I see this as a way to create more criminals. Can't charge people for using pot, why not for parents who spank?

I'm pretty sure the idea is to make things better for children. That's what I want to focus on.

All this other stuff is the mess we're going to have to make getting ourselves out of the corner. I just don't know the answers to your questions and I'm pretty sure no one else does either. I think they're largely unanswerable because the people they should rightly be directed at are dead and gone.

[Boges]

I'm pretty sure the idea is to make things better for children. That's what I want to focus on.

All this other stuff is the mess we're going to have to make getting ourselves out of the corner. I just don't know the answers to your questions and I'm pretty sure no one else does either. I think they're largely unanswerable because the people they should rightly be directed at are dead and gone.

What about "reasonable" don't you understand. We aren't talking about state-sanctioned child abuse.

[eyeball]

What about "reasonable" don't you understand. We aren't talking about state-sanctioned child abuse.

Except a lot of Canadians who regard spanking as abuse think that's exactly what we're talking about.

What I don't think is reasonable is you dumping that much larger social question on one guy's head while dragging reparations to natives into it.

Like I said gasoline meet fire. Why?

Edited December 23, 2015 by eyeball

[Boges]

Except a lot of Canadians who regard spanking as abuse think that's exactly what we're talking about.

What I don't think is reasonable is you dumping that much larger social question on one guy's head.

It's ultimately that one guy's choice to choose to implement this recommendation or not, He's the leader of the country.

It appears, regarding the Syrian Refugee issue, that he's not opposed to pragmatism. What gives here?

Courts have said that people who think spanking is abuse is wrong. Don't you imagine there'd be another court case in this instance? How has the precedent changed?

[Guest]

Corporal punishment in the home has been banned in 42 countries, starting with Sweden in 1979. The Canadian Paediatric Society stated:

"The research that is available supports the position that spanking and other forms of physical punishment are associated with negative child outcomes. The Canadian Paediatric Society, therefore, recommends that physicians strongly discourage disciplinary spanking and all other forms of physical punishment"

The defenses for corporal punishment in the home either stem from the idea that children are property or are at odds with the research. We protect children from many other activities that lead to negative mental or physical outcomes, so this is a no brainer; spanking should be banned. It will take awhile to change attitudes and cultural norms, but in a few decades bullying our children will seem ancient and brutal. As it should.

[Derek 2.0]

Will the Government be handing out money for Victims of Spanking? I got my ass paddled when I was young, if the GoC gives me a couple million all will be forgotten though.......I don't blame my parents of course, as it was a longstanding cultural practice common among Post-War immigrants to tune their children, but the then Trudeau Government could clearly have done more to protect the children......

[Big Guy]

The commission dealing with Residential Schools made recommendations regarding Residential Schools and the way they operated. Their mandate was to deal with aboriginal issues related to the schools. If they felt that aboriginals were using corporal punishment unwisely with their children then their recommendations were directed at aboriginals.

To use the commission as an attempt to change the parenting practices of all Canadians and set a precedent of the state involvement in family roles and upbringing of all Canadian children is a mistake. That was not their mandate and certainly not their recommendations to make.

To use recommendations dealing with the aboriginals as a template for all Canadians is wrong and should be ignored.

[Keepitsimple]

The commission dealing with Residential Schools made recommendations regarding Residential Schools and the way they operated. Their mandate was to deal with aboriginal issues related to the schools. If they felt that aboriginals were using corporal punishment unwisely with their children then their recommendations were directed at aboriginals.

To use the commission as an attempt to change the parenting practices of all Canadians and set a precedent of the state involvement in family roles and upbringing of all Canadian children is a mistake. That was not their mandate and certainly not their recommendations to make.

To use recommendations dealing with the aboriginals as a template for all Canadians is wrong and should be ignored.

On this one, you're making sense.

[Bonam]

The commission dealing with Residential Schools made recommendations regarding Residential Schools and the way they operated. Their mandate was to deal with aboriginal issues related to the schools. If they felt that aboriginals were using corporal punishment unwisely with their children then their recommendations were directed at aboriginals.

It makes no sense to have one set of rules regarding spanking for one set of the population and another set of rules for the rest of the population. We should be looking to reduce the legal distinction between aboriginals and non-aboriginals over time, not add more distinctions.

[Wilber]

When it paints a nation that took responsibility for disciplining people's children into a corner.

Trudeau has painted himself into a corner by rashly stating he would implement all 94 recommendations before they and their implications had been properly studied. His tendency to do this kind of thing in order to make the grand impression is a real flaw and it will get him and the country in trouble if he doesn't get a handle on it.

[Rue]

Relax. Sophie will keep spanking Justin.

[eyeball]

Trudeau has painted himself into a corner by rashly stating he would implement all 94 recommendations before they and their implications had been properly studied. His tendency to do this kind of thing in order to make the grand impression is a real flaw and it will get him and the country in trouble if he doesn't get a handle on it.

Yep, you see a lot of rash thinking in Ottawa alright, no argument there.

[capricorn]

Removing Section 43 from the Criminal Code would make it easier for bitter ex-spouses to charge ex-partners with child abuse. I know of one case, a 6 year old boy craving attention while visiting with his dad, kept tugging at another kid's clothing. The boy's father tugged at the boy's clothing and asked him how he liked being treated like that. The boy phoned his mother in tears and told her the father hit him. She charged him with child abuse and it went to trial. After testimony from each side Section 43 was invoked by the judge and the charges were dismissed. I don't know how prevalent are such cases, but I wonder if removing Section 43 might motivate more ex-spouses to lay child abuse charges for trivial occurrences.

[eyeball]

I suspect the day will come when kids and parents alike will wear cameras to protect themselves, from all directions.

We'll have spankometers with 'black-boxes' sewn into kids pants so parents and investigators alike can properly gauge if the state sanctioned spanking force is being complied with or was exceeded should there be an investigation into allegations. How about spanking-machines that dole out age and size appropropriate spankings that comply with the rules?

No doubt if this was a debate in the US the producers of South Park would colour (color?) an episode with 50 Shades of Grey.

[TimG]

She charged him with child abuse and it went to trial. After testimony from each side Section 43 was invoked by the judge and the charges were dismissed. I don't know how prevalent are such cases, but I wonder if removing Section 43 might motivate more ex-spouses to lay child abuse charges for trivial occurrences.

The idiot part of this move is the Libs are defending themselves against claims of malicious prosecution by claiming the crown attorney should make the same 'reasonable force' judgement call before laying charges which makes a mockery of the principle that they claim to support.

No rational person can argue that parenting does not require the occasional use of reasonable force to control or discipline a child which could include grabbing the child and pulling them where they don't want to go or slapping their hand to stop them from touching something dangerous.

Edited December 23, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

No rational person can argue that parenting does not require the occasional use of reasonable force to control or discipline a child which could include grabbing the child and pulling them where they don't want to go or slapping their hand to stop them from touching something dangerous.

Grabbing or pushing a child out of harm's way is not the same as punishing them for being in harm's way. If anyone should be slapped it's the parent for allowing that to happen in the first place.

[TimG]

Grabbing or pushing a child out of harm's way is not the same as punishing them for being in harm's way. If anyone should be slapped it's the parent for allowing that to happen in the first place.

Grabbing or pushing is assault and if you did that to a police officer you could be in serious trouble. If 'reasonable force' is removed as an exclusion under the law then parents could be charged for grabbing or pushing their kids. Of course the assumption is crown prosecutor would never prosecute such cases which makes the entire exercise nonsensical. People understand that parents need to use reasonable force with children and the law acknowledges that today. Changing the law will only victimize parents who are dealing with a malicious crown prosecutor. It won't help kids who are already protected from unreasonable force. Edited December 23, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

I'd be interested to see the slightest shred of credible evidence that beating a child enhances their development.

[eyeball]

Grabbing or pushing is assault and if you did that to a police officer you could be in serious trouble.

If I pushed a cop out of the way of a car that was about to hit him I'd be given a medal.

Notwithstanding it was Constable Forcillo, in which case I'd probably have 9 bullet holes in me.

Edited December 24, 2015 by eyeball