A rchive Date
[ 08-07-2000 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[What I learned over my father's knees
I may have had to endure the occasional spanking, but I always knew I was loved
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
Toronto Sun
July 9, 2000
When I was a child my father spanked me occasionally, but I was never in fear of him.
That fear would only come when I visited one of my friends, at whose house everyone seemed to live in fear of his dad. To be fair, I never saw him hit anyone in his family, he never hit me, and my friend never told me he was beaten.
But whenever his father was around, everyone in the house was obviously on edge - talking in whispers, walking around on tip-toes. Years later, I realized that regardless of whether this guy ever actually struck his wife or his kids, he had them all in a perpetual state of low level emotional terror.
Far better and healthier the situation in my home, where, on the rare occasion when I really screwed up, "Wait till your father gets home" was my mom's standard reply.
Upon arriving home from work, my dad, after being informed of my various misdeeds, would take me over his knee at an appointed hour, which he set, give me a few swift smacks on my bare bottom with his hand, and send me off to my room.
An hour later, mom would come in to make sure I was okay, and I would be restored to the world of the living, without any further recriminations. When it was over, it was over.
This always struck me as a far healthier relationship between parent and child than my poor buddy had to endure.
Of course, these sorts of more subtle distinctions are lost today on all those driven, self-righteous, busybodies and social engineers who want the state to ban spanking.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument that my childhood friend's dad never once spanked (or hit) anybody in his family, that they only lived in a state of perpetual fear that he might do so, or scream at them or otherwise punish them.
Was that a more healthy situation than in my family where I had to endure the occasional spanking, but always knew I was loved? Of course not. I mean, c'mon!
Last week, Mr. Justice David McCombs of the Ontario Superior Court delivered an eminently sensible judgment upholding the right of parents to spank their kids, reasonably.
Legally speaking, Judge McCombs ruled that section 43 of the Criminal Code is constitutional. It 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 in the circumstances." In so doing, he denied an attempt by anti-spanking groups and children's aid societies to strike down section 43.
(Sorry, but I've seen too many inquests over the years where it was revealed how a CAS had monumentally screwed up to have any faith in them as the all-knowing defenders of children. And I have no patience with politically correct ideologues, who, in their irrational obsession to end all forms of spanking, are effectively saying my dad was a child abuser.)
Much has been made by some media, who tend to have a knee-jerk bias against spanking as well, about the fact Judge McCombs wrote it might be time for Parliament to establish specific criteria to better define how section 43 should be applied and interpreted. Some suggested this meant the judge was calling for an overhaul of corporal punishment. Well, no. If you read his decision, it's apparent that when he talks about a parent's reasonable use of corrective force, he means the spankings many of us recall as kids.
He means spanking a child's rear with your bare hand, never with an object, never applying force to the head, never hitting an infant or a teen or a child who is incapable of understanding the punishment, such as one who is mentally handicapped, and never hitting in a way that produces physical injury.
All those things, Judge McCombs clearly believes, are abusive and criminal acts and should be prosecuted. So do I.
He is concerned that some past legal judgments appear to have used section 43 to justify excessive force, hence his call for parliamentary guidelines which would take into account "contemporary community standards" about spanking.
It's clear from Judge McCombs' ruling that he's not a fan of spanking and believes society is rightly moving away from it. He's just not prepared to indulge in the silly, often hysterical and guilt-laden rhetoric of so many who want it banned.
As Judge McCombs wisely notes: "It is not correct to say that section 43 sends the message that hitting children is acceptable. Parliament is not being contradictory or hypocritical in preserving the section 43 defence while simultaneously adopting a multi-faceted strategy to discourage corporal punishment of children. The law does not criminalize all behaviour which society does not condone." (My italics.)
Hallelujah! Finally, a judge who understands the difference between interpreting the law and judicial activism. As he notes: "Judges ... are not legislators, nor should they be."
One can only hope for a similar display of judicial wisdom when McCombs' sound and sensible judgment is appealed by those who want to ban spanking, as it will be.
Finally, I didn't spank my kids when they were growing up. I didn't see any need. But I feel no irrational compulsion to impose my views on someone who is simply being a judicious parent in spanking his or her child, as my dad was with me.
Lorrie can be reached at (416) 947-2212, by fax at (416) 947-3228 or by e-mail at lgoldste@sunpub.com. Or visit his home page
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|