Rush is ridiculing Canada's decision

[KensPen]

to ban parents from spanking INFANTS!!!

Oh my god,
how can you defend a parent's right to spank an infant?!!?

[MiddleRiverRefugee]

1. Tell Rush come over my house -- we'll pretend HE's an infant

:spank:

[sendero]

3. Problem is...

... he'd probably like it.

[outinforce]

18. You Say That as Though

you think there is something wrong with adults who enjoy being spanked.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

2. Reasonable amount of spanking OK

I think it's for kids 2-12 (not infants).

3 yr old tries to run into street...spank
4 yr old drops penny into light socket...spank
Kid talks back, screams in store...verble warning OK

[KensPen]

4. I have thus far managed to avoid it...

I won't pass judgement on those who use it.

However, I will get into a MAJOR debate with anyone advocating spanking an infant.

I think the message of solutions other than violence should be imparted to children, for their own help in conflict resolution.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

6. Hate to agree with rush on anything

If "infant" (under 2?) is to young to understand that kind of discipline then I'd call spanking abuse. Glad you can avoid it thus far, hope you never have to. Non-violent solutions are of course the best, however I will spank my children (non yet) if and when warranted. It is an extreme solution and hard lesson. However, if it keeps them from being electrocuted or hit by a car (extreme example I know) it's well justified. I would never tell someone how to raise their children, and my views may change if/when I have kids of my own. May yours be happy, healthy, and wise. :)

[iverglas]

8. "I would never tell someone how to raise their children"

Well, I'd never tell you how to drive ... but I'll insist that you obey the speed limit.

And I would most certainly insist that people not starve, beat or poison their children, or expose them to the elements, or throw them overboard at sea, or leave them unsupervised at an age when they are incompetent to keep themselves away from harm -- regardless of whether such people claimed to believe these to be appropriate ways to "raise their children".

Would you really not?

There may be disagreement as to what people should be prohibited from doing while acting in their children's best interests, which after all is what rearing children is all about.

But I don't really know anyone who would simply wash their hands of the children altogether and leave them entirely to the tender mercies of the people whose merged DNA happens to have caused them to be here.

The purpose of courts includes adjudicating disagreements about what people may and may not be prohibited from doing to other people. If the law exempted employers from criminal liability for assaulting their employees, not many people would say "I would never tell someone how to conduct their labour relations". The decision to exempt parents and teachers from criminal liability for assaulting children is just as properly subject to constitutional adjudication, since children have rights and are entitled to protection. There may be disagreement as to how best to protect them, and what discretion to allow parents in deciding that, but children ain't property.

.

.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

9. Holy macaroni, Rant much??

I don't live in Canada, but I guess I just assumed it was already illegal to throw children into the sea. Strong discipline is one thing, but your talking about outright abuse, which no one could possibly justify. If a kid gets whacked on the butt to keep him/her out of traffic, a good thing has been done. I don't think parents (most of whom are loving and caring people) ought to be tossed in jail for teaching children that dangerous behavior has consequences.
Your comments about people's merged DNA just happening to create children is not the experience of most families, and smacks of a frightening scenario of government control. Children are not property, of the parents or the State.

[iverglas]

17. me?

Your comments about people's merged DNA just happening to create children is not the experience of most families, and smacks of a frightening scenario of government control.

At least the logical connections between my thoughts can generally be identified.

If I want to characterize someone else in a particularly nasty way, I'll generally offer something to support my claim.


If a kid gets whacked on the butt to keep him/her out of traffic, a good thing has been done.

I didn't say it wouldn't have (and I don't think that the dissenting judges would have disagreed either) -- in fact, if you'd bothered to read the background information I provided on this case (links provided in this thread), you'd have noticed that I addressed that actual very point, among others.

That is quite a different matter from allowing a blanket exemption from criminal liability for certain people to use force against certain other people, subject only to "guidelines" issued by a court (arguably as obiter dictum, i.e. not binding opinion, it seems to me off the top of my pretty informed head), for "correction".

.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. I agree

You can't spank a baby. But a toddler, yes, there are times I've found it was necessary.

[iverglas]

5. info about the Supreme Court decision

I posted the story just now in LBN, here

The Court's decision can be read here:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc004.wpd.html

and a CBC report here:
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/30/spanking040130

I'd posted some info and discussion about the upcoming decision in GD the other day, here

I haven't read the whole decision yet ... it's quite long, what with the majority reasons (6 judges), 2 judges' dissenting reasons (2 of the 3 women on the court) and one judge's reasons dissenting in part.

From Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's reasons, for the majority:

23 I turn first to the requirement that the force be "by way of correction". These words, considered in conjunction with the cases, yield two limitations on the content of the protected sphere of conduct.

24 First, the person applying the force must have intended it to be for educative or corrective purposes: Ogg-Moss, supra, p. 193. Accordingly, s. 43 cannot exculpate outbursts of violence against a child motivated by anger or animated by frustration. It admits into its sphere of immunity only sober, reasoned uses of force that address the actual behaviour of the child and are designed to restrain, control or express some symbolic disapproval of his or her behaviour. The purpose of the force must always be the education or discipline of the child: Ogg-Moss, supra, p. 193.

25 Second, the child must be capable of benefiting from the correction. This requires the capacity to learn and the possibility of successful correction. Force against children under two cannot be corrective, since on the evidence they are incapable of understanding why they are hit (trial decision, (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 662, at para. 17). A child may also be incapable of learning from the application of force because of disability or some other contextual factor. In these cases, force will not be "corrective" and will not fall within the sphere of immunity provided by s. 43.

Perhaps Rush knows better.

.

[radwriter0555]

7. So turn the radio off. Paying attention to a mindless, drug addicted idiot

is pointless and only serves HIM.

No offense of course. But he's just irrelevent.

[canuckagainstBush]

10. dumb

so, let me get this straight, Rush is anti-choice, but thinks it's just fine to hit babys? :crazy:

[GreyV]

11. spanking infants?

Who in the world would spank infants? How do you exactly spank a baby?

Infant means a child between 1 and 23 months of age.

[Lars39]

15. Fundies would.

My southern bapt. missionary SIL has been spanking her 12 month old for a few months now. Her goal is to make the child *obey*. :grr:

[thebaghwan]

13. Do you think ol Rushbo likes a little pain with his pleasure?

n/t

[MrSlayer]

14. Spanking an infant is stupid.

An infant wouldn't get the concept, they're too busy working out sounds and colors and shapes.

[YNGW]

16. Discipline

>>In its decision Friday, the court ruled that reasonable corrective force can be used against children between the ages of two and 12 years old.

The court said it was unacceptable to hit a child with an object, like a belt or paddle. Blows and slaps to the child's head would also be unacceptable.

For corporal punishment to be legally acceptable, it must involve only "minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature," the court ruled.<<

Hitting a child in the head is not punishment, that's cruel. Using a belt or paddle on a child's bottom for correction done in a reasonable manner, that's fine. I didn't like it either as a kid, but my parents loved me enough to correct me when I had done things I shouldn't. Spanking was one method they used for punishment, and only after they had reasonably tried to warn me regarding whatever it was I doing or sometimes *not* doing.

I have two children and I occasionally have to discipline them. And just like with me when I was a kid, the lecture before the spanking is the worst part for them. I remember just wishing my parent(s) would just give me the spanking and quit the lecture. Having to face my parents knowing I had disappointed them in my behavior was much worse that the paddling, although I didn't like that paddling part either.

[Lisa]

20. smacking kids on the head can also cause brain damage ...

I grew up in a (Canadian) jurisdiction in the 1970s-80s where corporal punishment was theoretically possible in the schools, but was very seldom used in practice (didn't happen to any of my classmates or their friends). And (so classroom rumour had it) the only areas that would be affected were the palm of the hand, or the posterior.

I suspect that by specifically excluding blows to the head, or hitting with objects (like belts and paddles), the SC of Canada is trying to address concerns about injury.

[Bandit]

19. It is a Christian thing. He wouldn't understand.

:shrug: I like this saying it goes with almost every argument between Liberals and Conservatives.