Canadians please:) Section 43

As far as where my political tendencies lay (since I do not advocate corporal punishment in any form), I will and do vote for whatever party makes the most sense. However, it seems we Canadians vote people out for being arrogant and self-serving much more often than voting someone in for their great political savvy and vision.

Personally I have voted, at one time or another, for every major Canadian Party, including the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP as well as the Reform Party.

I believe that those people who advocate corporal punishment are the very ones most likely to never vote because they live only in the moment and have no thought for the future of their children or their fellow Canadians.

Originally posted by masqua
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.

I agree whole hartedly if that is what the legislation is calling for. This sounds very similar to laws and legislation we in the US have in place to pritect our children as well. The basic rule is if thier is no marks or physical damage, then no physical abuse has been committed.

After talking to my wife, I got the impression that this legislation was for the outlaw of all physical punishment. Im glad to hear that is not what is happenning. However, section 43, though is seen as a loophole for abusers, really is not. From what I have read, it encompasses discipline and states that a teacher/parent/guardian cannot be prosecuted for punishment that is not excessive. I guess the loophole comes in on the definition of excessive, but do you really have to be told what excessive is? Does it really need to be defined?

This brings to mind something I have thought for quite sometime. You should have to qualify to be a parent. Some sort of testing or something. That way you could weed out all those idiots who dont know what excessive really is. Just MO

Originally posted by intrepid
Amazing isn't it. One of life's joys.

Im not sure who said it, but someone once said there is no greater joy in life than being a parent. My little girl can be a handfull, but there are not words to truly describe the joy of being a parent. In ways, its the magic of being a child all over agian. As a matter of fact, the reason I hoped offline for a while was to put her to bed. Thats when shes the sweetest All lovey and snuggly Ahhhh I love my little girl Her name is Alicia in case anyone was wondering.

I am not at all sure, but I thought the Canadian Supreme court already decided this matter and decided that parents are allowed to physically discipline (within reason) their children. No?

To whoever it was that was wondering about 630 Ched. It is a radio station in Edmonton, Alberta.

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

Ah thanks - nothing some intense psychotherapy couldn't fix, the buck stops here.


"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."

Agree - there are other ways to get your message across - tone of voice, expression etc. I wonder about the usefulness of smacking (how hard can you smack?)... I really think its more useful for the parent than the child.


"I guess the loophole comes in on the definition of excessive, but do you really have to be told what excessive is? Does it really need to be defined?"

Yep. Child abusers when they are not being abusive can be the most loving, doting parents. Its an abuse cycle and behaviour they have learnt from their own childhood.


"Ahhhh I love my little girl Her name is Alicia in case anyone was wondering. "

Night night Alicia

Kidfinger, I believe your wife may have been listening to a report on a recent Supreme Court ruling on the subject. I don't believe I've heard of any new laws being proposed. The recent case was brought by a child advocacy group who wanted corporal punishment declared unconstitutional. The case summary:

Section 43 of the Criminal Code justifies the reasonable use of force by way of correction by parents and teachers against children in their care. The appellant sought a declaration that s. 43 violates ss. 7, 12 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The trial judge and the Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's contentions and refused to issue the declaration requested.

You can read the entire judgement here: www.lexum.umontreal.ca...

Note that an important idea is "reasonable" force. I know there can be lots of debate about what is reasonable, but it should be understood that the word "reasonable" has a special meaning when used in law. For information on the "reasonable person" theory in law, see en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> en.wikipedia.org...

I dont live in Canada but I do live right on the canada-america border, I dont think any kind of physical or threat discipline is right, I've never been disciplined in said fashion in my life, and if any one tried, I'd kill them in
self-defense, and if that sounds harsh, well I donmt much care anymore.

AlexofSkye, thank you for your clarification on this subject. I let my wife read the links you provided just to let her see the conservative spin being put on Canada here.

To the angry fellow above, would you tolerate time out in a corner

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

Yes, we are. Just look around and you'll see what I mean.

Originally posted by aSEEKER

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

Yes, we are. Just look around and you'll see what I mean.

Yeah, but thats a whole other thread

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

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.

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

AlexofSkye, thank you for your clarification on this subject. I let my wife read the links you provided just to let her see the conservative spin being put on Canada here.

So, was this post a real concern for children, or another attempt to bash the conservative party, Kidfinger? It seems like you spared no effort in trying to tie this Canadian legislation into right-wing spin.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe your wife just didn't get the gist of what she was listening to?

:shk:

here over in new zealand there was somthing about not being able to abuse a child or spank them it was at the start of the year if i could track down an article it would be easier to understand.

Originally posted by jsobecky

So, was this post a real concern for children, or another attempt to bash the conservative party, Kidfinger? It seems like you spared no effort in trying to tie this Canadian legislation into right-wing spin.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe your wife just didn't get the gist of what she was listening to?

:shk:

Did you even read this thread? My wife happens to be a very intelligent CONSERVATIVE! I am quite sure that anything she heard on the radio talk show was interpreted with intelligence, which is more than I can say about your reply. Did it ever occure that every thread is not about jsobecky?

Yes I have a real concern for the children. I have a concern of parents not being able to spank thier kids when they get out of hand. Kids today, for the most part, have little to no respect for anything but themselves. I firmly believe this to be from lack of dicipline allowed in the home. Get over yourself, and your party. You got mad when I actually pointed out that the article in question WAS another attempt to influence the American publics opinion of Canada, just as that Micheal Moore wanna be Ann Coltier was just doing not long ago.


[edit on 12/23/04 by Kidfinger]

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by jsobecky
Did it ever occur to you that maybe your wife just didn't get the gist of what she was listening to? :shk:

Did you even read this thread? My wife happens to be a very intelligent CONSERVATIVE! I am quite sure that anything she heard on the radio talk show was interpreted with intelligence, which is more than I can say about your reply. Did it ever occure that every thread is not about jsobecky?

I read every reply, Kidfinger. And I'm sure that you have every confidence in your wife's abilities; that doesn't mean I do. Maybe I'll meet her some day and form my own opinion.

Get over yourself, and your party. You got mad when I actually pointed out that the article in question WAS another attempt to influence the American publics opinion of Canada, just as that Micheal Moore wanna be Ann Coltier was just doing not long ago.

I didn't get mad at all, Kidfinger. It's just that you were out to lambast conservatives from the get-go; I think that the quotes from you that I pointed out illustrate that. And you didn't actually point out anything, except your very transparent efforts to politicize this issue.

You should also learn to spell Ms. Coulter's name correctly, Kidfinger. And while you're at it, get Moore's first name right, also.

Originally posted by jsobecky

I read every reply, Kidfinger. And I'm sure that you have every confidence in your wife's abilities; that doesn't mean I do. Maybe I'll meet her some day and form my own opinion.

Jsobecky. Please keep your opinions and remarks about my wife to yourself. I will ask you never to speak of her or any other family member agian.

You should also learn to spell Ms. Coulter's name correctly, Kidfinger. And while you're at it, get Moore's first name right, also.

So I misspell some names INTENTIONALLY and I am politicizing the question?

Here are some of my own quotes you failed to see.

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 agree whole hartedly if that is what the legislation is calling for. This sounds very similar to laws and legislation we in the US have in place to pritect our children as well. The basic rule is if thier is no marks or physical damage, then no physical abuse has been committed.

Im not sure who said it, but someone once said there is no greater joy in life than being a parent.

I guess you missed those. Take the blinders off.

My Father was a harsh disciplinarian, and as a result i rebelled against that and left home at an early age. I joined the Army not long after and realized, through the discipline i learned in the services, what it was my Father was trying to do. He was trying to instill in me a sense of responsibility and self discipline that combined with the discipline i learned in the Army has served me well over the years.
At the time i hated him with a passion and i suppose i went out of my way to bring about confrontation. Sadly i realized too late and my Father died before i could tell him i understood and to tell him i was sorry.
I have two daughters 4 and 9, i have never raised my hand to them because i don't want them to end up hating me as i hated my Father and then realizing too late that i only had their best interests at heart.
Beating a child can drive a wedge between Father and Son or Mother and Daughter that can sometimes take years to heal, if ever.

Originally posted by Janus

Beating a child can drive a wedge between Father and Son or Mother and Daughter that can sometimes take years to heal, if ever.

You are spot on right. Do you feel that just a spanking or a swat on the rear is justified in some situations? Im not talking about beating them with a belt or anything. Just a stern swat with you hand. And only one or two.

It is justified in certain instances i think, sometimes a parent has no other choice but to smack a child.
But as my Grandmother used to say
" the tongue often stings worse than the whip "

Originally posted by Janus

" the tongue often stings worse than the whip "

Thats the absolute truth. I dont have to spank my daughter to get her to listen most of the time. But there are occasions where a good swat on the rear is the only way to get her attention and get her to listen. If I have to tell her more than three times to do something, and she ignores me each time, she will get a swat, and then her ears turn back on. I dont enjoy it, and I dont get my jollies from it. If I find myself becoming angry with her, I will seperate us both untill we both cool down. Its a sight to see a father sending his daughter and himself to thier respective rooms

HeHe my Wife is Half-Irish and has flaming red hair and a temper to match, my youngest daughter has inherited both these traits and is a handful. She is only 4 but by God she has a temper. I haven't had to smack her but i can see it coming in the future.