Post by Dean Robinson on Jun 22, 2008 11:23:18 GMT -5
Parental rights becoming child's play
Calgary Herald
Published: Sunday, June 22, 2008
When out-of-control youngsters cause property damage or worse to third parties, the popular consensus is often that the parents of those youngsters should be held financially responsible.
While not wanting to hand neglectful parents a free pass, we concede it's not so easy these days to control your kids.
For one thing, between drugs and what's lurking on the Internet to deceive one's children, there's never been more to say "no" to.
Worse, Parliament and the courts are busy undermining what useful leverage over their children remains to parents.
Take, for instance, the Senate anti-spanking bill about to be introduced to the House of Commons by a Liberal MP. It is intended to remove Section 43 from the Canadian Criminal Code. That's the one affirmed as constitutional as recently as 2004 by the Supreme Court of Canada, and permits a parent to use force on a child "by way of correction" that is "reasonable under the circumstances."
Knowing "reasonable" means different things to different people, the Court amplified that the punishment should do no harm. To be precise, the parental defence against an assault charge would hold if the use of force "is part of a genuine effort to educate the child, poses no reasonable risk of harm that is more than transitory and trifling, and is reasonable under the circumstances."
We do not advocate the vicious beating of children. But, along with two-thirds of Canadians polled when the ruling came down -- and two-thirds of the Supreme Court bench that made it -- we believe this recognizes the suitability of mild corporal punishment to deal with dangerous or wilful behaviour.
Yet, the anti-spanking lobby continues its efforts to remove this useful tool for dealing with two-year-old tyrants. (Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette's bill S-207 is at least the 10th attempt since 1980.)
So, if children are not to be disciplined by corporal punishment, what about grounding or removing of privileges?
Well, that may be an infringement of their rights, too.
In an admittedly murky case complicated by a custody
battle, the Quebec Superior Court sided with a 12-year-old girl whose father -- who had custody -- had barred her from participating in an end-of-year school trip as a punishment. The mother, with whom she now lives, was in favour of her going.
Obviously, there's a lot going on here that can't be reported, and it looks like one of those difficult cases that notoriously make bad law. Pity. Long after the specifics have been forgotten, the precedent will remain -- kids suing parents for what they perceive as their rights may be upheld.
The latter case happened to be reported the same day a mother revealed to the National Post how her daughter's school called in an Ontario children's aid society after a psychic told the child's teaching assistant that powers beyond the veil had disclosed the autistic girl was being abused. Happily, the file was closed as quickly as it was opened when the provenance of the information was revealed.
Nevertheless, incidents such as this and the Quebec ruling, taken together with Bill S-207, are but the most recent examples of how parents attempting to lead children from the self-centredness of infancy to the behaviour society desires at maturity do so against a strong tide.
Canada joined itself to a fundamentally anti-parent philosophy in 1991, when Ottawa signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is now routinely referenced by Canadian courts and grants many rights to children. If liberally interpreted, this document could complicate the task of parenting even further.
Thus, a child's right to freedom of expression and to receive information (Article 13), is unconstrained by restrictions based on family standards of decency. Article 14 guarantees children freedom of "thought, conscience and religion." (The parental role is only "to provide direction.") Article 15 prohibits restrictions on a child's freedom of association, except as necessary for national security, and a few other exemptions, none of which include an explicit parent's right to oppose undesirable friendships. Article 16 prohibits arbitrary interference with a child's privacy, home or correspondence. And, so it goes on.
In a world of rights, few talk about responsibilities. Canadians who would like to restart that conversation have a long walk back. They should start now, while there remains a sufficient force of public opinion behind them that their advocacy is not lost before it is begun.
Calgary Herald
Published: Sunday, June 22, 2008
When out-of-control youngsters cause property damage or worse to third parties, the popular consensus is often that the parents of those youngsters should be held financially responsible.
While not wanting to hand neglectful parents a free pass, we concede it's not so easy these days to control your kids.
For one thing, between drugs and what's lurking on the Internet to deceive one's children, there's never been more to say "no" to.
Worse, Parliament and the courts are busy undermining what useful leverage over their children remains to parents.
Take, for instance, the Senate anti-spanking bill about to be introduced to the House of Commons by a Liberal MP. It is intended to remove Section 43 from the Canadian Criminal Code. That's the one affirmed as constitutional as recently as 2004 by the Supreme Court of Canada, and permits a parent to use force on a child "by way of correction" that is "reasonable under the circumstances."
Knowing "reasonable" means different things to different people, the Court amplified that the punishment should do no harm. To be precise, the parental defence against an assault charge would hold if the use of force "is part of a genuine effort to educate the child, poses no reasonable risk of harm that is more than transitory and trifling, and is reasonable under the circumstances."
We do not advocate the vicious beating of children. But, along with two-thirds of Canadians polled when the ruling came down -- and two-thirds of the Supreme Court bench that made it -- we believe this recognizes the suitability of mild corporal punishment to deal with dangerous or wilful behaviour.
Yet, the anti-spanking lobby continues its efforts to remove this useful tool for dealing with two-year-old tyrants. (Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette's bill S-207 is at least the 10th attempt since 1980.)
So, if children are not to be disciplined by corporal punishment, what about grounding or removing of privileges?
Well, that may be an infringement of their rights, too.
In an admittedly murky case complicated by a custody
battle, the Quebec Superior Court sided with a 12-year-old girl whose father -- who had custody -- had barred her from participating in an end-of-year school trip as a punishment. The mother, with whom she now lives, was in favour of her going.
Obviously, there's a lot going on here that can't be reported, and it looks like one of those difficult cases that notoriously make bad law. Pity. Long after the specifics have been forgotten, the precedent will remain -- kids suing parents for what they perceive as their rights may be upheld.
The latter case happened to be reported the same day a mother revealed to the National Post how her daughter's school called in an Ontario children's aid society after a psychic told the child's teaching assistant that powers beyond the veil had disclosed the autistic girl was being abused. Happily, the file was closed as quickly as it was opened when the provenance of the information was revealed.
Nevertheless, incidents such as this and the Quebec ruling, taken together with Bill S-207, are but the most recent examples of how parents attempting to lead children from the self-centredness of infancy to the behaviour society desires at maturity do so against a strong tide.
Canada joined itself to a fundamentally anti-parent philosophy in 1991, when Ottawa signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is now routinely referenced by Canadian courts and grants many rights to children. If liberally interpreted, this document could complicate the task of parenting even further.
Thus, a child's right to freedom of expression and to receive information (Article 13), is unconstrained by restrictions based on family standards of decency. Article 14 guarantees children freedom of "thought, conscience and religion." (The parental role is only "to provide direction.") Article 15 prohibits restrictions on a child's freedom of association, except as necessary for national security, and a few other exemptions, none of which include an explicit parent's right to oppose undesirable friendships. Article 16 prohibits arbitrary interference with a child's privacy, home or correspondence. And, so it goes on.
In a world of rights, few talk about responsibilities. Canadians who would like to restart that conversation have a long walk back. They should start now, while there remains a sufficient force of public opinion behind them that their advocacy is not lost before it is begun.