Is JT really going to ban spanking?

[Bob Macadoo]

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.

That's exactly what is being said......use a scalpel.....not a machete like the previous government.

[dialamah]

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.

It wasn't my parenting that was maligned, so it wasn't my legal rights that were affected. And please tell me -- how are kids served if a parent is maliciously accused, and has their access removed for the two or three years it can take for the case to go through the courts, and the parent cleared of charges? All it would have taken in this case was for the initial social worker to employ a bit of common sense, do a minimal amount of investigation, and the kids would not have lost their father for those years.

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.

I was shocked too, and I checked with a couple of lawyers - they can, and they do. The police don't have to 'prove' a crime was committed, they merely have to act on the allegation and the allegation only needs to come from one person. In this case, it was a social worker who made the complaint, after one interview from a woman who'd decided - ten years after the supposed crime - to make a complaint on her ex-husband, nearly a year after she'd left him, and after she'd allowed him plenty of access to the kids, while she pursued a new relationship.

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.

There was no mark on anyone, there was no repeated behavior, there was no documentation. The child supposedly affected said at the time it wasn't true; mom later said that she 'made it up', but by then it was too late. The charges progressed, the prosecutor tried some fancy moves, but in the end the judge said it didn't happen - three years later.

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.

Yeah, they count on that. They threaten with long jail times, permanent record, promise that it'll go easier if the accused just pleads guilty now - the system will look kindly on the person who doesn't bother with the cost of court. He can get it over with, , there'll be no or very little jail time - six week-ends, vs. five years, he'll be able to see his kids that much sooner. And many innocent people plead guilty out of fear, out of exhaustion, out of financial desperation and not because they are guilty. The system works; prosecutors get their conviction rates and innocent people have their life destroyed.

I didn't believe it could happen either, in Canada, till I saw it happening firsthand.

I agree social service agencies are overwhelmed, but from what I've seen, they're overwhelmed because they aren't actually doing their jobs. Mostly, they fail to investigate - lack of investigation means they either miss the abuse altogether or they target someone who is innocent and needlessly destroy parent-child relationships.

[Big Guy]

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

I suggest that the goal is to allow the child to live long enough to start making their own decisions on their safety.

[eyeball]

How about this wording:

It's obviously nowhere near comprehensive enough for all the subjectivity that people - victims, perpetrators, reporters, and investigators alike will bring to the issue. It sucks that we can't let common sense prevail but it is what it is. We're political animals and in some cases there can be no stone left unturned when it comes to precisely and tediously spelling out the rules.

The law doesn't specifically mention spanking and it shows in the public debate which is all over the map.

Edited December 27, 2015 by eyeball

[TimG]

The law doesn't specifically mention spanking and it shows in the public debate which is all over the map.

That is is my point. The idea that 'spanking' is allowed under the current law depends on interpretations and precedents that are not in the law itself. These interpretations could be changed without removing the clause and turning every parent who needs to deal with uncooperative kid in public into a law breaker. Edited December 27, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

So either be very specific about allowing spanking or disallow it just as specifically.

As for the overzealousness of officialdom, wear a camera to protect yourself. I just don't have any other suggestion on how to defend against them other than to make officials wear cameras which is probably impossible...there's really little to nothing we can do.

[Big Guy]

The current laws define illegal assault. It requires certain actions and intentions that change with every example. That is why "spanking" is in quotation marks. Applying force to the rear end of an individual can be very light and it can be very heavy handed. It could be used as foreplay by consenting adults or as an applied message to a child that they are exhibiting behaviour that can be harmful to them.

Taking a child by the arm can be grabbing violently and squeezing or it can be gentle directing. Each situation varies. Or existing laws already give the judicial system enough power to investigate and prosecute if an assault has taken place.