OPINION
Parents deserve right to spank children
I don't spank my kids. And I plan to get through my entire parenting
life without ever laying a hand on my two children — ages five and 1
1/2. Despite that, I don't think the Supreme Court of Canada should throw
out a 100-year-old law that allows parents to use mild forms of corporal
punishment to set boundaries for their children.
Philosophically, I'm against spanking. The way I see it, if I spank
my kids, I'm telling them that it's OK — in some cases — to resort to
violence. The message is that it's acceptable, on occasion, to use
hitting to sort out our problems. And outside of self-defence — and
some aspects of administering criminal law — I don't support that view.
When I tell my kids “It's not OK to hit,” I really mean it. But that's just me. It shouldn't be enshrined in criminal law. There
are cases where some parents feel that it's necessary to use a mild form
of corporal punishment, such as a smack on a child's bottom. And parents
have that right.
It's just not for me.
My wife and I have been able to set boundaries for our children using
approaches such as reason, respect and removal of privileges when
necessary. I think you get better results. So far so good.
Misguided protection
The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law — the group
seeking to make spanking a crime — is misguided in its attempt to
protect children.
Their legal argument is full of holes. They say the section of the
Criminal Code which says that “reasonable” force to discipline children
is a Charter of Rights violation.
They cite Sec. 15 of the charter which states “every individual is
equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and
equal benefit of the law ... without discrimination,” including “age.”
They say because adults can't lawfully assault other adults that when it
comes to spanking, kids are being discriminated against based on age.
That's a bit naive. If the charter were applied without conditions, governments wouldn't
be able to restrict the age of driving a car to 16 or prevent people
from voting until they're 18. Fortunately, the charter is subject to “such reasonable limits
prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society.”
That means it's justified in some cases to discriminate based on age.
You'd have social mayhem if you couldn't. Any reasonable interpretation of the law would conclude that a mild
form of corporal punishment is “demonstrably justified.” Severe forms of
corporal punishment, such as beating your kid, are already against the
law.
The other aspect of the charter that the anti-spanking group is
relying on is Sec. 7: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and
security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except
in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
That one's a real stretch. I suppose a “time-out” is a deprivation of
your child's “liberty,¨ too.
What's next, invoking Sec. 8 — “Everyone has the right
to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” — to prevent parents from
illegally searching their children's school bags?
I don't spank my kids. But I don't have the right to tell others not
to.
Nor does the Supreme Court.
By Tom Brodbeck
28 January 2004
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2004/01/27/326440.html
home
|