|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
ATTEMPT TO REVIVE SPANKING ISSUE
The arrogant political left, which looks contemptuously
down on those who disagree with its supposedly enlightened
views, is attempting to revive the spanking issue. Apparently
the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on the subject,
handed down a year ago, was only a stopgap in the onward journey
to ban the spanking of children in Canada. In that case, the
Supreme Court of Canada, in January 2004, upheld the constitutionality
of Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which provides that parents
may spank their children if it is reasonable under the circumstances.
(See REALity, Jan./Feb. 2004, p.1.)
The Court concluded that children need a safe
environment, and must depend on parents and teachers for guidance
and discipline to protect them from harm and to promote their
healthy development within society. It was determined that
Section 43 of the Criminal Code accommodates both these needs.
This judgment did not stop the anti-spankers,
however. Instead, they formed a new coalition of national
organizations and published, in 2004, a Joint Statement on
physical punishment of children and youth, which is yet another
effort by social and legal activists to abolish S.43 in the
Criminal Code.
The coalition includes the following organizations:
Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Child Welfare League
of Canada, Family Service Canada, Canadian Child Care Federation,
Canadian Institute of Child Health, Canadian Public Health
Association and the Canadian Association for Young Children,
among others.
Their Joint Statement rests on the recommendations
of the United Nation's Monitoring Committee on the Convention
on the Rights of Child, which stated, in its reports in 1995
and again in 2003, that S.43 should be removed from the Criminal
Code. It is important to note, however, that the UN Convention
does not refer at all to the issue of spanking children. The
committee simply "read in" this provision. Fortunately
the recommendations of the committee are not legally enforceable.
However they will be used as "fodder" to increase
pressure by NGO's to force the government to act in accordance
with its recommendations.
The Joint Statement of the coalition rolled
together discipline, punishment, hurting children and violence
against them, to build its case against parental authority,
while appearing to claim a monopoly on the protection of children's
rights and dignity.
The authors appeared to have no concept of
reasonable physical discipline provided in a loving manner
for the correction of behaviour, and of legitimate parental
authority as protected by S.43. They falsely assume that S.43
legitimizes violence and physical assault, which harms the
rights and dignity of children. It is surprising and disappointing
that a prestigious health care institution, such as Children's
Hospital of Eastern Ontario, would lend its name to such a
shoddy misrepresentation of the law. Yet social and legal
activists within that organization and others continue to
challenge the protection of parental rights in S.43 by trying
to confuse the issue, while continuing to use the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child as a weapon.
REAL Women of Canada debated one of the authors
of the Joint Statement, Ron Ensom, a social worker and consultant
to The Children's Hospital, on the Rogers TV program "Talk
Ottawa". Mr. Ensom admitted that no scientific study
could ever be made to prove that physical discipline was harmful,
because such a study would be unethical. Yet he persistently
repeated that "scientific evidence" supported the
Joint Statement. REAL Women on the other hand, quoted extensively
from court decisions upholding S.43 and received a positive
response from the phone-in audience.
The new campaign to ban spanking in Canada
continued in June when Liberal MP, Karen Kraft-Sloan, as part
of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, attended a
meeting of the Council of Europe's Committee on Economic Affairs
and Development at the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD). The purpose of this meeting, supposedly,
was to allow Canadian parliamentarians, as observers, to acquire
an overview of the state of the world economy.
However, MP Kraft-Sloan used this opportunity
to announce to the meeting the "horrifying" fact
that Canada still allows children to be spanked by their parents
and caregivers, which she opined " … is a breach
of their [children's] fundamental right to dignity and physical
integrity." She stated:
It is clear that the Canadian Parliament
must either repeal or amend Section 43 of the criminal code
to bring it in closer alignment with models within Europe,
for example the Swedish Parents Code.
Another ominous sign is an advertisement published
in the Globe and Mail on Nov 20, 2004, by the anti-spankers,
stating that Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child prohibits "risk of physical injury and abuse"
of children, and that in 1995 and 2003 the UN Monitoring Committee
on the Convention had urged Canada to repeal Section 43 of
the Criminal Code.
Then Health Canada went to bat for the anti-spankers
by providing funding to the Toronto Public Health Department
to place a similar advertisement in The Globe & Mail to
oppose spanking. The Toronto Public Heath Department, by the
way, is well known for its promotion of abortion, especially
for adolescents. Thus the department now finds itself in the
peculiar position of promoting the killing of a child in the
womb, but once a child is born, forbidding anyone from laying
so much as a finger on him/her for discipline purposes! Logic
and common sense have never been a strength with that department.
The anti-spanking campaign was next assisted
by feminist Liberal, Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette, who
introduced a bill in the Senate on November 2, 2004 to remove
Section 43 from the Criminal Code. According to Ms. Hervieux-Payette,
"Parents who routinely spank their children should be
slapped with charges of assault." She admits, however,
that she is not the first parliamentarian to tackle this controversial
issue. In fact there have been six private members' bills,
tabled by MPs and by one Senator (Sharon Carstairs of Winnipeg).
However, Ms. Hervieux-Payette is convinced she will succeed
where others have failed, because of the presence of a minority
government, which will allow MP's to have a "free"
vote on the issue.
Not a Government Bill
The key to the revival of the spanking issue in Parliament,
therefore is whether Justice Minister Irwin Cotler will support
it or take it on as a government bill. Fortunately, Mr. Cotler
has decided that this issue will not be backed by his government
because he stated that the Supreme Court of Canada decision
a year ago, was "comprehensive," and laid out sufficient
guidelines to protect children from abuse. Therefore he said
that he would not back any legislative initiative to repeal
the spanking law. Thank heavens!
Therefore, any attempt to outlaw the spanking
of children in Parliament will be only a private member's
bill, not a government bill, and will not have an easy ride
through Parliament. Despite this, the propaganda campaign
of the anti-spankers will move relentlessly on, attempting
to make the public more "enlightened" on the subject.
We will be keeping a sharp eye, especially on Senator Hervieux-Payette's
bill. One never knows what these persistent, "enlightened"
left-wingers will do next in their blinkered campaign to outlaw
parents from disciplining their children by spanking.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
