| About this site |
| About us |
| Our beliefs |
| Your first visit? |
| Contact us |
| External links |
| Good books |
| Visitor essays |
| Our forum |
| New essays |
| Other site features |
| Buy a CD |
| Vital notes |
| Spiritual/ethics |
| Spirituality |
| Morality/ethics |
| Absolute truth |
| Peace/conflict |
| Attaining peace |
| Religious tolerance |
| Religious hatred |
| Religious conflict |
| Religious violence |
| Laws and news |
| Religious laws |
| Religious news |
|
|
 | 1980: The Senate Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Science recommended that Section 43 be "reconsidered in view of the sanction which this type of provision gives to the use of violence against children." No action was taken. 1 | ||||||||||||
| 1981: The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs responded to the report of the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child and recommended section 43 be "repealed immediately." Again, no action resulted. 1 | ||||||||||||
| 1984: The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal discussed Section 43's
troubling and ambiguous phrase "reasonable under the circumstances."
Their ruling
has been widely cited in subsequent court cases. The Court of Appeal
listed some criteria which should be considered:
According to a 2004 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada: |
"The Court of Appeal added that if the child suffered injuries which may endanger life, limbs or health or if the child was disfigured, that alone would be sufficient to find that the punishment was unreasonable." 2
| 1989-NOV-20: The United Nations adopted the Convention on
the rights of the Child. 3 Two sections of the
Convention that have been interpreted as bearing on corporal punishment of
children are:
| ||||||||
| 1990-SEP-2: Thirty days after the ratification of the Convention by the 20th state, the document entered into force. | ||||||||
| 1991-DEC-13: Canada ratified the UN Convention. | ||||||||
| Early 1990s:
| ||||||||
| 1994: MP (Member of Parliament) Svend Robinson (NDP) introduced bill C-296 to repeal Section 43. It did not proceed to a parliamentary committee for study. Like almost all private member's bills, this one died without being voted upon. | ||||||||
| 1996-APR: Citizen is a publication of Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based Fundamentalist Christian group. In a major article, they addressed the matter of corporal punishment. They believe that the ideological basis of the anti-spanking movement is found in the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child. This is a document signed by every federal government in the world, with the exception of the United States. Focus feels that the Convention views children as individual rights-bearers, separate from their families of origin, with the State as their ultimate guardian. 5,6 Most conservative Christians believe that the state should not intrude into the inner workings of families. The father should be in charge; the wife should be submissive to her husband; the children should be under the control of both parents until they reach their 18th birthday. | ||||||||
| 1996:
| ||||||||
| 1997: M.P. Libby Davies introduced her first private member's bill: C-276. It did not proceed. | ||||||||
| 1998: M.P. Tony Ianno introduced ha private member's bill: C-368. It did not proceed. | ||||||||
| 1999: M.P. Libby Davies introduced her second private member's bill: C-276. It did not proceed. |
| 2000-JUL-05: The Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a ruling on Section 43 of the Criminal Code, in the case: "The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. The Attorney General of Canada." They found mild violence against children to be constitutional. 8 | ||||||||||||||||
| 2001
| ||||||||||||||||
| 2002-JAN-15: The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the year
2000 lower court ruling which found that Section 43 of the Criminal Code of
Canada is constitutional. About a week later, Léger Marketing conducted a cross-Canada survey of adults' beliefs concerning spanking.
Joan Durrant of the University of Manitoba's family-studies department criticized the second question. She said: "It...doesn't ask them if they think its the best way or the right thing to do, so the question really doesn't tell us a whole lot about what people think." She reported on a survey that she had conducted in the 1990's. It showed that 65% of respondents would support a legal prohibition of spanking if it were proven to reduce injuries to children. 10 | ||||||||||||||||
| 2002-DEC: Anti-spanking web site opens: The Committee to Repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada -- commonly called the Repeal 43 Committee placed their web site online. See: http://www.repeal43.org/ | ||||||||||||||||
| 2003-JUN-06: The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision. 11 | ||||||||||||||||
| 2004-JAN-30: The Supreme Court handed down their decision. 12 They determined that Section 43 is constitutional. However, they interpreted the troublesome "reasonable under the circumstances" phrase in order to give specific guidance to families and the courts as to what is allowable force, and what is criminal abuse. 13 | ||||||||||||||||
| 2006-APR-05: Senator Hervieux-Payette's bill S-207 "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children)" was given its first reading. It would repeal Section 43 and allow the government 12 months in which to mount an educational campaign to educate parents and coordinate activities with the provinces. 14 | ||||||||||||||||
| 2006-APR: The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights issued a final report titled: "Effective implementation of Canada's international obligations with respect to the rights of children." Their second recommendation was that the government take steps to eliminate corporal punishment in Canada. They stated that this should include: |
"The immediate launch of an extensive public and parental education campaign with respect to the negative effects of corporal punishment and the need to foster enhanced parent-child communication based on alternative forms of discipline;
Calling on the Department of Health to undertake research into alternative methods of discipline, as well as the effects of corporal punishment on children;
Repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code by April 2009; and
Calling on the Department of Justice to undertake an analysis of whether existing common law defences – such as necessity and the de minimis defence – should be made expressly available to persons charged with assault against a child." 15
Government inactivity:
The Repeal 43 Committee make a number of interesting points on their web site. Two of which are:
| "The government has no public education campaign against physical punishment: The claim that the government is educating the public against physical discipline is a fiction. There is no widespread educational campaign aimed at the general public. One or two pamphlets and a video targeted at a specific audience do not amount to public education. Given that...[Section] 43 would conflict with an effective campaign against corporal punishment, it is not surprising that no such campaign has been launched. " |
| "The Court's decision makes certain parenting advice illegal. 'Spanking' children with switches, paddles or belts or spanking toddlers is now a criminal offence as a result of the [Supreme] Court's decision. Some parenting books advocate such punishment. This now amounts to counseling the commission of a criminal offence. The government should advise publishers, libraries, and booksellers that these books must be revised or withdrawn from sale in Canada." 16 |
References:
- "Political Response," Repeal 43 Committee, at: http://www.repeal43.org/
- R. v. Dupperon (1984), 16 C.C.C. (3d) 453.
- "Correction of child by force," Criminal Code of Canada, at: http://insight.mcmaster.ca/
- "The Convention on the Rights of the Child," Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, at: http://www.unhchr.ch/
- "Canadian parents' approach to discipline," The Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse, Newsbrief 4, (1990).
- Cindy Silver & Dallas Miller, article, Citizen magazine, Focus on the Family, 1996-APR-29.
- "Parental authority the real target of anti-spanking lobby," Campaign Life Coalition Canada, at: http://www.lifesite.net/
- "FACT SHEET: Section 43 of the Criminal Code (Corporal Punishment)," Department of Justice, Canada, 2004-JAN-30, at: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/
- John Goddard, "When spanking kids crosses the line," The Toronto Star, 2003-MAR-22. Online at: http://www.familyaid.org/
- Donald McKenzie, "Right to spank backed in poll," Canadian Press. Published in the Toronto Star, 2002-FEB-11, Page A6.
- "Supreme Court of Canada - Agenda," 2003-MAY-26, at: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/
- "Supreme Court of Canada -- Judgment in Appeal," 2004-JAN-30, at: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/
- "[2004] 1 S.C.R.," Supreme Court of Canada, 2004-JAN-30, at: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/
- Senator Hervieux-Payette "Bill S-207 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children), Senate of Canada, at: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/
- Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, "Effective implementation of Canada's international obligations with respect to the rights of children." Senate of Canada, at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/
- "Constitutional Challenge," Repeal 43 Committee, at: http://www.repeal43.org/
|
Home page > Morality menu > Spanking > Spanking menu > here |
|
or Home page > Hot religious topics > Spanking > Spanking menu > here |
Copyright © 2002 to 2008 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Originally written: 2002-SEP-09
Latest update: 2008-MAY-05
Author: B.A. Robinson
|
|
