C8

by Susan Cornish
For the Daily Gleaner

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

2 Comment(s)

Parenting is a joy and an awesome responsibility.

We must provide for our children's physical, emotional and spiritual needs to the best of our ability. Our children require our guidance and protection to safely navigate the journey into adulthood.

My husband and I take seriously our responsibility to raise our two sons to be good husbands and fathers. We want to raise up young men who bring a positive influence and contribution to society.

This doesn't happen by chance. This takes work. This takes backbone. It requires that we be ready to intervene when one of our children is moving in a direction that is physically or morally dangerous to himself or to others around him.

Sometimes this requires the use of "reasonable force given the circumstances."

In 2004, after years of court challenges, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the right of parents to use physical force to discipline their children if needed. In June 2008, a bill that could criminalize parents, or persons standing in the place of parents, for use of "reasonable force" in guiding and protecting children cleared the Senate.

Bill S-209, which has been labeled the "Anti-Spanking" bill, would remove section 43 of the Criminal Code which states: "Every school teacher, 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 circumstances."

Let's consider this carefully. This bill not only makes "spanking" a criminal offense, but also the use of force in "restraining" a child. The Canadian Bar Association, a group of the most influential lawyers in Canada, is urging Parliament not to pass Bill S-209 as they do not feel it will actually further the protection of children.

The CBA's website warns that "By prohibiting the use of reasonable force by a responsible adult who might step in where it would be otherwise reasonable to do so, it (bill S-209) might actually represent an increased risk to children, either from their own behavior or from the unrestrained behavior of other children."

Six out of nine justices have stated that section 43 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because spanking has already been clearly separated from abuse in the Criminal Code. Child abuse is illegal in Canada. Further, the CBA is concerned that if Bill S-209 passes, it may be harder to protect children who are victims of serious abuse as the justice system attempts to deal additionally with complaints about spanking.

This bill concerns me, not just as a parent, but also as someone who sometimes "stands in the place of a parent."

My professional association contacted its membership to suggest that we support this "anti-spanking" bill, but have the professional implications been fully considered? Gentle restraint is a method taught to professionals working with children. It involves using physical restraint to prevent an "out of control" child from injuring self or others.

Will its use become a criminal offense? This question deserves consideration.

And what about my right overall to parent my child in a reasonable manner? Is there more at stake than "spanking" as a means of correction? I wouldn't be so concerned if I hadn't read Kim Beaudoin's story as related in an article in the Calgary Herald on June 21.

In June a Quebec Superior Court judge agreed to hear the case of Beaudoin's 12-year-old daughter who took her father to court for refusing to let her go on a three-day, end of school year field trip with her Grade 6 class.

This decision was made by Mr. Beaudoin as a consequence of his daughter's act of posting inappropriate photos of herself on the Internet, despite her father's instructions not to do so. The judge overturned the father's decision.

We read the Beaudoin's story to our 15-year-old son. His response was "creepy." I agree.

This same son broke a household rule this past week. While I was disappointed that he chose to do so, I was pleased to hear his opening remark in negotiating consequences for his actions: "It should be related to what I did, right?" Logical consequences where possible, right, son. You'll make someone a good dad some day.

I write because I feel the need to be a voice. I've been told that our MPs and Senators see every letter in the paper as representative of the voices of 1,000 of their constituents. Please hear our voices.

I know I am not alone. Our children need us to be their parents. They need us to protect them, sometimes from themselves and sometimes from others.

Sometimes the use of "reasonable force given the circumstances" is required to do this.

Susan Cornish is a parent living in Fredericton. Please send comments to letters@dailygleaner.com.