Senate should be spanked for reopening settled debate
Licia Corbella, Calgary Herald
Saturday, June 21, 2008
husband and I had children, we vowed we would never spank them.
I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure we declared our noble
intentions with more than a little smugness. We, unlike others,
would be enlightened parents. No corporal punishment would be
meted out on our offspring. No, siree. We were too well
equipped, too knowledgeable, too controlled. We would use reason
with our exceptional and well-behaved children and they would
understand, and listen.
up to our vow for about two-and-a-half years. That's when one of
our boys started biting his brother.
reasoning with our little angel. That didn't work. Then we gave
him time outs. Then longer time-outs. We lectured calmly, we
screamed loudly, we removed privileges. Nothing worked.
bites became a reflex. Soon they were leaving significant marks
and a very upset victim.
Eventually, we warned the biter that if he bit his brother
again, he would be spanked. We didn't have to wait long. He bit
his brother that same day. I spanked his clothed bottom. And
guess what? It worked.
broken. Sanity and peace restored. One son protected from bodily
harm, another from a very anti-social habit.
another raft of busybodies is trying to make it illegal for
loving parents to spank their children. Again.
Tuesday, a bill that could criminalize parents for spanking
their kids cleared the Senate. Liberal Senator Celine
Hervieux-Payette is the sponsor of the proposed legislation that
would strike down Section 43 of the Criminal Code that states:
"Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of
a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward
a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if
the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the
been here before. Following years of court challenges in 2004,
the Supreme Court of Canada thankfully didn't spank parents
after all. In a 6-2 judgment with another judge having a split
decision, Canada's highest court upheld the right of parents to
use physical force to discipline their children if needed.
It was a
victory of common sense over twisted logic. Just like we all
know the difference between making love and rape, we also know
the difference between spanking and abuse.
Hervieux-Payette, however, has clearly learned the concept of
neverendums from her separatist provincial colleagues in Quebec
because shortly after the Supremes ruled in favour of parental
rights, she started working with the so-called children's rights
group that lost the Supreme Court challenge four years ago.
how's this for irony. That same group -- Foundation for
Children, Youth and the Law (FCYL), formerly called the Canadian
Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law (CFCYL) -- that
worked so doggedly to make it illegal for loving parents to
spank their children is the very same group that successfully
worked to make it legal for a stranger to sodomize a
not a joke. I'm not making this up. In the late '90s this same
group successfully argued in court that the age of consent for
homosexuals should be lowered to 14 to match that allowed
Naturally, if the adult stranger was spanking the
14-year-old for some sexual purpose, that would be acceptable
under this group's logic.
however, the spanking was administered to the child by a loving
parent in a last-ditch attempt to help prevent his or her child
from, say, engaging in dangerous behaviour, like having sex at
14 with adult strangers, then that, according to the FCYL should
be a criminal act.
for our youth and parents, the federal Conservative government
recently managed to have the age of consent raised from 14 to
victory. Nevertheless, parental rights are clearly under attack
week, a Quebec Superior Court judge not only agreed to hear the
case of a 12-year-old girl who took her father to court for
disallowing her to go on a three-day, end-of-year field trip
with her Grade 6 class, but then overturned the father's
decision and agreed with the child! The father was grounding the
girl because he forbade her to post inappropriate photos of
herself on the Internet, which she did anyway at a friend's
social engineers have their way, parents won't be able to ground
their kids, spank them, deny them privileges, etc.
father's lawyer, Kim Beaudoin said it best as quoted in the
National Post: "What will be too much punishment? Not going to a
dance? I want my boyfriend to sleep at my house and my parents
aren't letting me? I want to use the Internet and my parents
aren't letting me? Where will it stop?"
Unfortunately it likely never will. Stupidity, perversion,
relativism and just poor judgment are rampant.
thing is certain. Loving parents will always continue to do
what's best for their children, regardless of what the state
imposes upon them. Why? Because most parents would die for their
kids, to protect them. How many of those senators and rights'
groups busybodies would?
© The Calgary Herald 2008