Is JT really going to ban spanking?

[Smallc]

You can legitimately force a child into a car provided the type of force you use is "reasonable".

You cannot do that to an adult.

And that clearly isn't the target of this legal change.

[TimG]

And that clearly isn't the target of this legal change.

It will be the consequence. If the target was simply corporal punishment they could simply change the definition of 'reasonable' to exclude after the fact corporal punishment. By removing the exclusion entirely they open parents up to charges in any number of situations which most people would consider reasonable.

As evidence look at Big Guys account of how teaching has changed:

When I retired from teaching, any teacher who "assaulted" a student would be immediately suspended. Earlier, when control protocols were being established, teachers were allowed to react with students like "a kind and gentle parent". Eventually, any contact was considered assault. By the time I retired, "assault" included verbal assault and finger pointing.

That is where we are heading if the exclusion is removed and kids will be much worse off. Edited December 26, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Not at all. I am simply illustrating why the standard for the use of force against a child is different that the standard for the use of force against a child. The example I gave about forcing an adult into a car proves my point. I guess you refuse to address the point because you can't admit you are wrong to claim that the standard for using force against a child is the same as the standard for an adult.

The standard for using force against a child is different than using force against a child. Do you hear me?

[On Guard for Thee]

And that clearly isn't the target of this legal change.

Of course it isn't. I can't understand anybody conflating enforcing safety standards and assault. Scary those right wing guys sometimes.

[TimG]

Of course it isn't. I can't understand anybody conflating enforcing safety standards and assault. Scary those right wing guys sometimes.

Try reading the arguments made instead of making crap up.

[On Guard for Thee]

Try reading the arguments made instead of making crap up.

Bottom line: if you have to strike your child to try and get their attention, you have failed somewhat as a parent.

[TimG]

Bottom line: if you have to strike your child to try and get their attention, you have failed somewhat as a parent.

Yet you favor criminalizing behavior such as forcing a screaming child into car. How does criminalizing that help kids?

[On Guard for Thee]

It may be surprising that the right wing nut jobs will drone on about for instance how some Muslim men treat their wives, and then turn cheek and suggest that whacking their child upside the head is OK if they misbehave in some way. Perhaps even because Jesus tells them so. (which he didn.t) The hypocrisy is so obvious. Perhaps that is why numerous studies have found conservatives to be less educated and underemployed and more partaking of welfare services than their liberal counterparts who tend to be teachers and do well and pay taxes. Oh well. T'was ever thus I suppose.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yet you favor criminalizing behavior such as forcing a screaming child into car. How does criminalizing that help kids?

You're obviously not paying attention.

[TimG]

You're obviously not paying attention.

No you are the one not paying attention. Forcing someone into a car is assault. Unless the law makes an exception for parents that need to use reasonable amount of force to deal with children who can't be reasoned with it will make it illegal to force a child into a car. Edited December 26, 2015 by TimG

[Bob Macadoo]

You're obviously not paying attention.

Sometimes the partisan fervour on here is absurd. I never agree with TimG but in this case if JT does what TimG thinks (which I don't believe, just partisan horseshit) then there could be trouble. He'd be the same as Harper using ill thought out red meat legislation.

If you don't craft replacement text and simply strike out the clause you are relying on police/prosecutors to use judgement when they will be heavily influenced by CAS/divorce attorneys/etal.

Restraining a struggling child so they don't lash out could be grounds for an assault charge. I doubt there would be a conviction but once you include the above parties into the mix it doesn't matter you are now "in the system".

TimG has repeatedly said craft proper language to eliminate striking but don't create appeal-able/repeal-able legislation out the gate. Will lose favour quick.

[Smoke]

Maybe the rhetoric should stop so an adult conversation can happen. OGFT continually uses the term "beating" a child. Huxley used that term as well. Nobody is here is advocating the "beating" a child. They are talking about "spanking" and minor physical parenting. Obviously giving a child a little smack on the bum as reminder that they are doing something wrong, or picking up a screaming child to remove them from a store is not going to ruin them for life.

"Beating" a child is obviously NOT what people are discussing here. OGFT why don't you argue honestly and people may begin to look at your posts as constructive rather than argumentative.

[Machjo]

I can speak from experience as a child. My father struck me when I was very young and in later years only needed to threaten it to keep me in line.

Did it work? Sort of. I did become extremely obedient, but also emotionally distant from him to this day.

Even as an adult I'd sometimes feel an irrational fear just by being in his presence even though the last time he'D struck me was when I was about 8, and before that probably when I was around five. Past the age of five, all he needed to do was raise his hand, or even just verbally warn me.

I remember overhearing him giving friends advice with their kids when I was about fourtwen, telling them how he let me know who was the boss at an early age and haD few problems with me since, praising me for how obedient I was.

Now our relationship is courteous, which really is a sad word to use to describe a father-adult-sun relationship.

[Machjo]

I guess if the goal is merely to raise an obedient child...

[eyeball]

The people calling for a change to the law don't seem to understand that you are asking for all force to be outlawed - not just 'after-the-fact' corporal punishment.

Of course it doesn't make sense when you interpret things in such a literal and extreme manner. I refer you to the ridiculous suggestion that under these laws I'd be charged for using force in a manner that saved a cop's life.

[TimG]

Sometimes the partisan fervour on here is absurd. I never agree with TimG but in this case if JT does what TimG thinks (which I don't believe, just partisan horseshit) then there could be trouble. He'd be the same as Harper using ill thought out red meat legislation.

Trudeau has promised to implement ALL recommendations of the TRC: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2091412-trc-calls-to-action.html

Item 6 calls from the REPEAL of Section 43. Not amendment. Not replacement. But repeal.

Implementing all of TRC recommendations without any thought is nothing but red meat legislation.

Nothing the Liberals have said so far suggests the Liberals understand the subtle distinctions that I explained above.

Now a lot can happen between initial proposal and final legislation but given the absurd reactions of people on this forum to my arguments there is no reason to believe the end result will be reasonable and it will be a disaster for parents and kids. I think you are letting your partisan fervor interfere with your thinking if you believe that JT will not try to simply strike out the clause.

Edited December 26, 2015 by TimG

[Bob Macadoo]

Of course it doesn't make sense when you interpret things in such a literal and extreme manner. I refer you to the ridiculous suggestion that under these laws I'd be charged for using force in a manner that saved a cop's life.

You refer to it being ridiculous as if that has a correlation with probability. We now have our court system clogged with "resisting arrest", "verbal spousal assault", and other subjective charges. If you hack at the criminal code you get apes that will use it to their advantage.

[eyeball]

So you believe you could grab and adult and force them into a car against their will and you would face no legal repercussions?

Sure, in the case of a severely mentally handicapped adult. Key phase here is in the case of.

You're not making any attempt whatsoever to look at things in a case by case basis. You're interpreting things in the most rigidly inflexible way you can and imagining that's how the state well interpret things too. It's pointless trying to discuss this with you if you can't abandon that line of 'reasoning'.

Edited December 26, 2015 by eyeball

[eyeball]

You refer to it being ridiculous as if that has a correlation with probability. We now have our court system clogged with "resisting arrest", "verbal spousal assault", and other subjective charges. If you hack at the criminal code you get apes that will use it to their advantage.

Like I said, wear a camera if you think the world is really getting that bent out of shape.

[TimG]

You're interpreting things in the most rigidly inflexible way you can and imagining that's how the state well interpret things too.

Because that is what the state (meaning individuals working for child services or the police) have done time and time again. While many of these unreasonable charges may end up being dropped the charges themselves cause great harm to the family and kids. Preventing injustice requires some indication in the law on what the state considers to be reasonable and simply disallowing everything and leaving it up to the 'judgement' of bureaucrats would be a disaster. Edited December 26, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

I won't disagree that there are examples of overzealous officials, I just think the fear of them is being overblown.

If overzealousness is that big an issue the thing to do is push for inclusion of measures in the legislation that specifically addresses it.

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe the rhetoric should stop so an adult conversation can happen. OGFT continually uses the term "beating" a child. Huxley used that term as well. Nobody is here is advocating the "beating" a child. They are talking about "spanking" and minor physical parenting. Obviously giving a child a little smack on the bum as reminder that they are doing something wrong, or picking up a screaming child to remove them from a store is not going to ruin them for life.

"Beating" a child is obviously NOT what people are discussing here. OGFT why don't you argue honestly and people may begin to look at your posts as constructive rather than argumentative.

Refer to my post #81

[Guest]

Bottom line: if you have to strike your child to try and get their attention, you have failed somewhat as a parent.

Every parent fails at some point or another. If a law can't differentiate between spanking and beating then it shouldn't be in place.

[Rue]

What we actually need, in my opinion, is a legal system that doesn't take shortcuts when investigating allegations of abuse. Having lived through a nightmare scenario involving social services who automatically assumed guilt based on a single vague and unsubstantiated accusation, thousands in legal fees and a judge ultimately saying "There's not enough evidence to prove guilt", I think there needs to be a focus on holding parents who make malicious accusations much more accountable.

Now I found your response Dhil interesting because you portray yourself as a victim . its actually people like you I worry about and I will tell you why-your words are quite clear-you put your own legal rights before those of your own children.

Read back your response. Not a word about your child's best interest's-just yours.

A single, vague, unsubstantiated accusation you say? I don't know of a cop, a children's aid investigator, a prosecutor, who based solely on a "vague" or "unsubstantiated" allegation would initiate criminal charges.

Anyone who works in the system knows we are so overloaded with cases, we barely can handle the file load let alone get to the worst ones.

However I do believe its possible for anyone to beat a kid, smack him around, and get away with it

In the real world, unless we show a bruise, a visible mark, a repeated series of behaviours, tell- or document tale signs I won't discuss- no conviction is coming. You bet abuse slips by us and thousands of kids are being abused and beaten daily and remain undetected.

The law is overwhelmed with abused children, so much so it can only deal with the worst of the worst.

In reality 95% of crimes are plea bargained away now. Our criminal system is so overloaded when you add laws to it, they are never enforced.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Rue

[TimG]

If overzealousness is that big an issue the thing to do is push for inclusion of measures in the legislation that specifically addresses it.

How about this wording:

Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.