Is JT really going to ban spanking?

[TimG]

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

If you pushed a cop because he was insisting on going one direction and your wanted him to go in another you would be in trouble. No matter how much self righteous busy bodies whinge there are legitimate uses of physical force against a child which would be assault if used against another adult.

Now if they want to amend the law and say the use force for after-the-fact punishments is outlawed (e.g. spanking) then that could be reasonable. But they are not - they want to remove all exceptions to the assault laws and leave it up to the crown prosecutor to decide which cases are worth pursuing.

Edited December 24, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

If you pushed a cop because he was insisting on going one direction and your wanted him to go in another you would be in trouble.

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

Now if they want to amend the law and say the use force for after-the-fact punishments is outlawed (e.g. spanking) then that could be reasonable. But they are not - they want to remove all exceptions to the assault laws and leave it up to the crown prosecutor to decide which cases are worth pursuing.

Specifically mentioning spanking somewhere in the scheme of things would be reasonable but apparently it isn't mentioned at all which is rather odd considering they're coming at the issue with every other nitpicking detail and possibility they can imagine.

In the meantime, if they want to pass laws that prevent me from doing something that would save a cop's life and people want to defend them I can only conclude the whole country probably needs a spanking.

[BC_chick]

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

Bingo. There is none. I'm with JT 100% on this one.

[TimG]

Bingo. There is none. I'm with JT 100% on this one.

So you believe a parent who grabs a wailing child by his arm and drags him away from a toy store should be put in jail?

Because such actions are physical force that would be an assault if done against an adult.

Edited December 24, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

So you believe a parent who grabs a wailing child by his arm and drags him away from a toy store should be put in jail?

Who on Earth would believe such a thing?

[BC_chick]

So you believe a parent who grabs a wailing child by his arm and drags him away from a toy store should be put in jail?Because such actions are physical force that would be an assault if done against an adult.

I once had to walk a screaming 3 year for 6 blocks. She squirmed the entire way, my arms felt like I'd been arm wrestling with a pro. Cops slowed down to look at me. Cars gave me a shady look the entire time.

Not once did I consider spanking her or 'dragging her by the arms'.

It's kinda weird reading that you think that's appropriate behaviour.

[eyeball]

He thinks pushing cops out of the way of cars that are about to hit them is weird too.

That's the trouble with this whole stupid issue, people have to go to such lengths once they've taken such a hard line on it. It just fills up with so many ridiculously extreme and outlandish what ifs and split hairs that it's a unfathomable mess.

Of course it doesn't help when politicians feel some incessant need to not be seen as changing their minds on something and the even more incessant need of counter partisans to freak out when they do. No matter which way or how high they jump in this stupid country people are primed to try and jump higher and higher.

Get a grip.

[TimG]

Not once did I consider spanking her or 'dragging her by the arms'.

You just admitted you physically dragged her away. That is assault under the law for adults. Do you think you should be in jail for that kind of aberrant behavoir? Edited December 24, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

He thinks pushing cops out of the way of cars that are about to hit them is weird too.

I said no such thing. It is an absurd strawmen that you invented that has nothing to do with anything I said.

[dialamah]

You just admitted you physically dragged her away. That is assault under the law for adults. Do you think you should be in jail for that kind of aberrant behavoir?

I thought she carried the child, since she was 'squirming' and BC_Chick's arms were sore.

[TimG]

I thought she carried the child, since she was 'squirming' and BC_Chick's arms were sore.

The child was resisting so she would have had to overpower the child with her strength. That is assault under the law for adults (unless you believe it would be perfectly fine to overpower someone and force them into a car). Edited December 24, 2015 by TimG

[dialamah]

The child was resisting so she would have had to overpower the child with her strength. That is assault under the law for adults (unless believe it would be perfectly fine to overpower someone and force them into a car).

Well, not sure what point you are trying to make, but obviously an adult carrying a screaming child is preferable to a child being dragged or hit.

[TimG]

Well, not sure what point you are trying to make, but obviously an adult carrying a screaming child is preferable to a child being dragged or hit.

My point is the standard for using force on one's own child is different than the standard for the use of force on other adults or other children because of the nature of the parent-child relationship. That is what the current law attempts to codify and even if the law is removed we would still expect crown prosecutors and police to understand the difference. However, that also means that it will be more likely that parents face malicious prosecution by crown and/or police that take a too literal interpretation of the law.

That is why the law should be left as is where 'reasonable' could have a interpretation that changes over time. For example, I do not think the use of violence as 'after-the-fact' punishment for misbehavior is necessary at any time. We could adjust the definition of reasonable to exclude that while keeping the provision.

Edited December 24, 2015 by TimG

[dialamah]

My point is the standard for using force on one's own child is different than the standard for the use of force on other adults or other children because of the nature of the parent-child relationship. That is what the current law attempts to codify and even if the law is removed we would still expect crown prosecutors and police to understand the difference. However, that also means that it will be more likely that parents face malicious prosecution by crown and/or police that take a too literal interpretation of the law.

That is why the law should be left as where 'reasonable' could have a interpretation that changes over time. For example, I do not think the use of violence as 'after-the-fact' punishment for misbehavior is necessary at any time. We could adjust the definition of reasonable to exclude that while keeping the provision.

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.

[TimG]

What we actually need, in my opinion, is a legal system that doesn't take shortcuts when investigating allegations of abuse.

Well a law that says any use of force is criminal and leave it up the prosecutors to decide which cases are worth pursuing would make that problem worse. Edited December 24, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

I said no such thing. It is an absurd strawmen that you invented that has nothing to do with anything I said.

Whatever you say chief.

[Topaz]

Ever watched the "Nanny". There's no hitting of any kind and it wouldn't surprise me if parents to be have to take a course in parenting, dealing with how to handle a difficult child.

[PIK]

Slap on the arse, is all that is needed.

[Big Guy]

The current laws are sufficient to protect children from assault, to discourage potential abusers and still allow parents to discipline their children. Governments should stay away from parenting as it does from religion.

My parents generation used corporal punishment daily. I turned out OK.

My generation used corporal punishment carefully and never while angry. My children turned out OK.

My childrens generation are very reluctant to use any form of corporal puishment. Am still waiting to see how my grandchildren will turn out.

Until I see studies that show that psychological attempts at behaviour modification are more effective than lovingly applied corporal punishment, I will believe that corporal punishment, applied correctly, is a viable and efficient positive behaviour modification technique to use on children.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Big Guy

[dialamah]

The current laws are sufficient to protect children from assault, to discourage potential abusers and still allow parents to discipline their children. Governments should stay away from parenting as it does from religion.

My parents generation used corporal punishment daily. I turned out OK.

My generation used corporal punishment carefully and never while angry. My children turned out OK.

My childrens generation are very reluctant to use any form of corporal puishment. Am still waiting to see how my grandchildren will turn out.

Until I see studies that show that psychological attempts at behaviour modification are more effective than lovingly applied corporal punishment, I will believe that corporal punishment, applied correctly, is a viable and efficient positive behaviour modification technique to use on children.

I've seen kids who've been raised without corporal punishment and they are amazing kids. Responsible, mature, focused, goal-oriented. Corporal punishment is common and may not be harmful to most kids, but it certainly isn't necessary to raise good human beings.

[Boges]

I've seen kids who've been raised without corporal punishment and they are amazing kids. Responsible, mature, focused, goal-oriented. Corporal punishment is common and may not be harmful to most kids, but it certainly isn't necessary to raise good human beings.

Doesn't sound like there's a need to criminalize it then.

How much worse would a child be when their parents have a criminal record and/or are taken away from them for a practice that "isn't harmful to most kids".

Edited December 24, 2015 by Boges

[dialamah]

Doesn't sound like there's a need to criminalize it then.

How much worse would a child be when their parents have a criminal record and/or are taken away from them for a practice that "isn't harmful to most kids".

I said "may not be harmful to kids"; I've no way of knowing for sure just how harmful it is or isn't. For most of my life I felt that spanking, judiciously applied, wasn't a bad thing. Then about five years ago, something happened in my life and my thoughts on that have changed. If I'd known then what I know now, I would have done my best to eliminate corporal punishment from my kids' lives even though they turned out 'ok'.

I'm not suggesting criminalizing spanking is a solution either but if other methods that exclude hitting (violence) work as well or better, why not use those methods?

[Wilber]

The issue isn't using other methods, its criminalizing one method. Is this the son of the man who said the state should stay out of the nation's bedrooms?

[Big Guy]

When I first entered the education system in Ontario as a cild, corporal punishment was applied daily for a variety of transgressions from a slap with a ruler for talking in class to the "strap" for venturing into the gilrs side during recess.

When I first went into secondary school teaching, physical contact with students was encouraged from a slap on the back for a good result to a poke in the chest when the student told you to F*** Off to restraining a student who lost control during a PE class.

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.

Yes, to-day in Toronto Secondary schools, if a teacher raises their voice and/or points their finger at a student then they are guilty of "assault" and punished accordingly. And you wonder why teachers to-day teach with their classroom doors closed and go the other way when there are sounds of conflict in the halls. Most secondary schools have hired guards patrolling the halls with radios and "control devices".

Many hours of my last few years were wasted in trying to resolve situations where there had been physical contact between teacher and student - and a few cases of "verbal assault and pointing". Ask anyone currently in the secondary school system of what kind of behaviour is prevalent in our schools.

Start to legislate what kind of contact is not allowable (illegal) between parent and child (on top of existing laws) and you open a lawyers Pandora box looking for children as clients to sue the parents for yelling at them.

[dialamah]

@ BigGuy, you make good points there. Not much to add, just wanted to let you know cause there's not a lot of 'agreeing' on these boards, eh?