It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Canadians please:) Section 43

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 05:25 PM
My wife and I were just chatting, and she was telling me about a radio program she was listening to on the way home. In the program, the host was talking about a law that was trying to be passed up in the northern territories. It concerned the spanking of your child. Basically, this law, if passed will not let any parent give physical punishment of any type.

Is this true, or is this some more American Ann Coltier type of Canadian hate spewing my wife was listening to?

My wife is a republican, so she was probably listening to a conservative radio show. Thats why I asked this.

Edit to change name of post.

[edit on 12/22/04 by Kidfinger]

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 05:31 PM
630 Ched?

On the Issue of spanking, man, let me just say this: My dad use to discipline me like they did in the good old days, then showoff to his freinds how he beat me.


I think it's good to spank your child here and there.


posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
630 Ched?

Is this the name of the bill?

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 05:35 PM
I agree Deep but corporal punishment has had it's usefulness spent by the time the kids get to school age.

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 05:39 PM
I cant find any info on this. I know its none of my business, seeing as Im American, but I am more intrested to see if this is another attempt at twisting the truth by a certain political party in the States. Could one of you continental brothers point me in the right direction on where to find this? Or just tell me what you know. I would appreciate either

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 05:43 PM

Originally posted by intrepid
I agree Deep but corporal punishment has had it's usefulness spent by the time the kids get to school age.

Corporal Punishment is an ever useful tool, and may be employed in any command that I may have the honor of leading. I question your perception of usefulness, a good enlisted man may serve 20-30 years before retiring, far longer than "by the time the kids get to school age."

Carry on.

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 05:45 PM
I heard something about a while ago, and I'm not sure but I Think it might be against law don't quote though, LOL and my son 21 now.
you might find something in the link in my signature or here or maybe not

[edit on 22/12/2004 by Sauron]

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 05:56 PM
Well I'm not Canadian but where I live (Sweden), there are legal restrictions on corporal punishment. Surely though, this doesn't concern 'a slap once in a while' but rather what would be considered abuse.

Though somewhat ambiguously, I do feel there are cases where such legislations may be justified.

As to my own background, I grew up with a lot of violence and abuse at home. A lot of it. And in my case I can tell you, it wasn't a 'good thing'. Not even close.

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 05:59 PM
Must admit I've resorted to the odd smack when my kids were little. I'm not sure if this is the best method of discipline - kids learn by example, and it might be sending the message that violent behaviour is ok. More often than not parents smack or spank their 'naughty' children to let off steam. Whether or not the program was some hype thing, I think the principle is sound. Do animal trainers resort to violence to train animals? ... but they know how to train and get amazing results. Maybe parents need to look at their training methods.

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:03 PM
Also agreed Durden. To start with, if an object is used, ie belt, ruler, etc, as far as I'm concerned that's abuse. Look at the action compared to the outcome of the offending action. A spank or letting your kid run into the road. A spank, on the butt, it hurts but doesn't cause damage, or letting your kid put something in an electrical outlet. Like I said, this action is useless after the kid goes to school. BTW, there are much more effective deterents, losing comp. time, tv, social groups. Now those things REALLY hurt.

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:06 PM
I completly agree that child abuse is untolerable. But I dont think Giving your kid a swat on the rear for backtalking or whatever, should be a concern of the law. From what my wife told me, the law was to make it illegal to even swat thier rear. Not punishment that is physical in nature. I can remember growing up as a child and recieving very few spankings. However, this was due to the fact that I learned pretty fast that I didnt like the whoopings
My papaw used to discipline his children and grand children by making them go trim the switch from the tree. And dont get a little one cause those sting even worse than the big ones hurt!

While this may sound ruff, I look back on it and think they were right in doing so. I was the type of child that needed a little "guidence" every once and a while. I definatly would not consider this child abuse.

Edit: Sauron, thanks for the link, but I could find nothing on child punisment laws. Either means the site doesnt know about it yet, or its not true.

[edit on 12/22/04 by Kidfinger]

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:12 PM
I grew up with the old fashion "law of the belt" and all four of us came out fine, it is something we never lost was the respect we have for our father, my father's world was law and and his belt was the enforcer and that was it.

I used spanking for my kid when they were young and they have turned so far fine, and the same strict disciplined my parents did to me I used to them but with a more open mind actually much more open mind.

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:12 PM
double post

[edit on 22-12-2004 by marg6043]

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:14 PM
See Kidfinger, you think its ok to discipline your child with a swat on the rear because that's how you were taught .... I received much more severe physical punishment as a child and I don't think any violence is ok.

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:20 PM

Originally posted by c_au
See Kidfinger, you think its ok to discipline your child with a swat on the rear because that's how you were taught .... I received much more severe physical punishment as a child and I don't think any violence is ok.

Weelllllll........ I think thier is a big difference in a swat on the butt an being beat with a razor strap till your back bleeds. I only condone the swatting...occasionally. I know that I said that I didnt consider being whipped with a switch, child abuse. But you have to understand, it didnt last long. Usually, one or two swats was all we got. And to be quite hones, they wernt very hard. It was more of a demoralizing thing as a child to be spanked, or swatted with a switch or fly swatter. Please dont think I am condoning violence towards children. I actually have a daughter who is about to turn 6. There is no way I could ever be vicious or cruel to her. She makes me smile even when I dont think I can.

Im sorry about the abuse you have endured. No one should ever have to go through that.

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:22 PM
Here is another link that explains much better.


OTTAWA -- Anti-spanking advocates carried their cause to the country's highest court yesterday, arguing corporal punishment of children should be outlawed as an affront to human dignity. "This case is about the right of children not to be hit, a right that in a modern, 21st-century democracy should be unquestioned," lawyer Paul Schabas told the Supreme Court of Canada.

He got a skeptical reception from some of the nine judges, who sharply questioned his legal reasoning.

He also met vigorous opposition from the federal government, which maintained that, whatever the merits or pitfalls of spanking, parents should be free to resort to it in "mild to moderate" measure.

At issue is Section 43 of the Criminal Code, enacted more than a century ago, which protects parents, teachers and caregivers from prosecution for using "reasonable" force to discipline children.

[edit on 22-12-2004 by sardion2000]

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:23 PM
this info is a bit old so it does not say that any laws have been pased from 1998.


Ban right to spank, court urged

By Patricia Orwen
Social Policy Reporter
Children's advocates are asking an Ontario court to declare unconstitutional the Criminal Code section allowing adults to spank or use other forms of physical discipline on children.
"As a society, we don't give an employer the right to hit an employee . . . we also have laws against abusing a spouse . . . now it's time that children be afforded those same rights and protection," Toronto lawyer Cheryl Milne said at a news conference held by the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law and the youth group VOICE.
A court application was filed yesterday, the International Day of the Child, by the foundation in Ontario Court, general division. It asks that Section 43 of the Criminal Code be deemed unconstitutional because it fails to "give children the same rights and protection as adults." A parent who lightly slaps a child on the buttocks when the child tries to run into the middle of a busy intersection shouldn't necessarily be charged. But that child should have the same legal rights as an adult who is hit by another adult, Milne said.
Section 43 allows parents to use physical discipline on a child provided that the force is "reasonable." But the precise definition of reasonable corporal punishment has long been the subject of intense debate.
All too often Section 43 is used as a defence for parents, teachers and other caregivers who are charged with seriously assaulting a child in their care, Milne said.
Five separate private member's bills aimed at repealing the section have already been introduced in the Senate and House of Commons. None has made it past second reading.
The foundation expects the case to be heard within six months. It plans to introduce evidence showing that corporal punishment is a form of child abuse which perpetuates an acceptance of violence in society.
More than two-thirds of assaults on children under the age of 3 reported in 1996 were committed by family members, Milne said.
Italy, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Austria have passed legislation prohibiting corporal punishment.

Court battle coming over whether you should spank children to punish them

"If Section 43 is removed, it places the state more squarely between the parent and child than ever before and, ultimately, that cannot be in the best interest of kids," says legal consultant Cindy Silver. "State intrusion should be allowed only in matters of abuse and neglect. Then the onus to prove abuse should be on the state, not on the parents to disprove it."
Critics Prepare Charter Challenge To Spanking

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:28 PM
Sauron, you beat me to it. I just found o snip on "section 43" from sardion2000's article:

At issue is Section 43 of the Criminal Code, enacted more than a century ago, which protects parents, teachers and caregivers from prosecution for using "reasonable" force to discipline children.

I was going to say that with this in place, it would seem a moot point, however, as Saurons article points out, section 43 is what is trying to be removed to make this possible.

Im confused as to who these anti corporal punishment advocats represent political party wise?.

[edit on 12/22/04 by Kidfinger]

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Kidfinger
She makes me smile even when I dont think I can.

Amazing isn't it. One of life's joys.

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:57 PM
A Canadian viewpoint...

Corporal punishment is a very deep hole. The parent that slaps a childs hand away from a hot stove is trying to keep that child from hurt and cannot be construed as being criminally intent. However, there are people who get their jollies out of causing pain. The law needs to be able to process children who come to hospitals as obvious cases of abuse and that is what the intent of the legislation should be.

A child has no recourse but the goodwill of their parents.

Also, it has not been so long ago that the 'rule of thumb' was fine with our highly moral society. That rule stated that you could not beat your wife with a rod thicker than your thumb. I don't think that dog hunts anymore either.

A fully grown woman could at least run away and try to fend for herself in a cruel and wicked world, but a child has nowhere to go.

I agree that 'section 43' can be used to protect abusers and feel it should be removed. Violence breeds violence and a child reared on such behaviour will do the same in the adult years to come.

I've raised two sons and have never resorted to violence. I may have raised my voice a few times and been angry with them and they have told me later that the "look in my eyes was enough" to scare them into behaving. I also think that talking to them as if they were young adults, even when they were little, gave them a sense of responsibility for their actions.

What are we...grunting animals who lash out with snarls and teeth or are we a civilized society?

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in