看打法
看下面的 可放心打
Should the government pass legislation to ban parents from spanking their children:" 69% of Canadian adults said "no."
Various court decisions involving Section 43 have established that:
Mild spanking is permissible.
Picking up a child and relocating them to a "time-out" place is acceptable, even though some force might be required.
Kicking, strangling or hitting the child's face or genitals is not allowed.
Force is not permissible if the child is over the age of 15.
Criminal Code:
CORRECTION OF CHILD BY FORCE:
43. "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 under the circumstances." [R.S. c.C-34, s.43.]
Some claim that Section 43 violates the Canadian Charter of Rights' guarantee for equal protection of the law. It also appears to contravene the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, of which Canada is a signatory.
A common problem with legislation on this topic is the definition of the term "reasonable." One parent might consider hitting a child with a paddle to be a justifiable use of corporal punishment. A social worker might consider the same act to be abuse.
Various court decisions involving Section 43 have established that:
Mild spanking is permissible.
Picking up a child and relocating them to a "time-out" place is acceptable, even though some force might be required.
Kicking, strangling or hitting the child's face or genitals is not allowed.
Force is not permissible if the child is over the age of 15.
Some have suggested that if Section 43 were repealed, then any degree of physical force against a child would constitute a criminal act and the adult responsible would have to be charged. This appears to be incorrect. "The common law de minimus rule prevents prosecutions for minor breaches of the law. Provincial guidelines can require education, counselling and practical help to learn other methods of discipline." Also, "reasonable force to prevent a child from hurting others or damaging property would [not] be illegal. Reasonable force in such situations is allowed by other sections of the Criminal Code." 8
Recent history:
1989-NOV-20: The United Nations adopted the Convention on the rights of the Child. 1 Two sections of the Convention that have been interpreted as bearing on discipline are: Article 5:
"States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention."
Article 19.1:
"States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child."
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 Convention.
Early 1990s: Corporal punishment of children was not a high-profile topic. With the exception of Christian schools and some other private schools, punishment of children had been largely abolished as counterproductive. Spanking in the home was in decline. One study showed that only 21% of Canadian parents spanked their children. 2 However, an informal poll in Canadian Living magazine showed that 73% of respondents believed that corporal punishment was appropriate in certain situations. In the mid-1990s, many child psychologists, social workers and others became concerned about the findings of studies into corporal punishment. They started to form organizations to combat punishment. Some had as their goal the repeal of Section 43.
1996-APR: Citizen is a publication of Focus on the Family, a Fundamentalist, international, 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. 3,4 Fundamentalist Christians generally 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, and the children are under the control of both parents.
1996: The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada issued a position paper on corporal discipline. 5 They acknowledge that "some parents resort to physical discipline too quickly and too often..." They suggested that "it would be preferable, and more effective, for the state to launch an education campaign about alternate approaches to discipline." They interpret Article 5 of the Convention as emphasizing the role of parents in bringing up their children. They do not believe that "reasonable physical discipline" violates Section 19.1. The latter requires parents to "protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence" (Emphasis ours). They continued: "every responsible Canadian opposes child abuse.... the issue here is the intrusion of the state into the domain of parental responsibility." They argued that "by criminalizing [corporal punishment], society would be saying that parents cannot be trusted to raise their children."
Unknown date: A private member's bill by Canadian Member of Parliament, Svend Robinson, proposed the repeal of Section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code which permits parents to use "reasonable force" when disciplining children. Like almost all private member's bills, this one died without being voted upon.
2001-Summer: Six children from Alymer, ON , aged six to 14, were taken in to care. Their Fundamentalist Christian parents had allegedly spanked them with paddles. In their belief system, parents are not allowed to strike their children with their hands. The children were returned home after their parents promised to suspend spanking. A trial will start on 2002-MAY-27 to determine if the children need the protection of Family and Children's Services.
2002-JAN: The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling that found that Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada is constitutional. The Government argued that allowing limited corporal punishment does not harm children, and that it "balances the societal interest in sustaining the family unit with the charter rights of the child."
About a week later, L殓er Marketing conducted a cross-Canada survey of adults' beliefs concerning spanking. To the question: "Should the government pass legislation to ban parents from spanking their children:" 69% of Canadian adults said "no."
21.9% said "yes."
9.1% didn't answer.
To the question: "Is a light slap an effective way to make a child think?" 46.9% said "yes."
46.6% said "no."
6.5% didn't answer.
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. 7
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 has placed their web site online. See: http://www.repeal43.org/
看下面的 可放心打
Should the government pass legislation to ban parents from spanking their children:" 69% of Canadian adults said "no."
Various court decisions involving Section 43 have established that:
Mild spanking is permissible.
Picking up a child and relocating them to a "time-out" place is acceptable, even though some force might be required.
Kicking, strangling or hitting the child's face or genitals is not allowed.
Force is not permissible if the child is over the age of 15.
Criminal Code:
CORRECTION OF CHILD BY FORCE:
43. "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 under the circumstances." [R.S. c.C-34, s.43.]
Some claim that Section 43 violates the Canadian Charter of Rights' guarantee for equal protection of the law. It also appears to contravene the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, of which Canada is a signatory.
A common problem with legislation on this topic is the definition of the term "reasonable." One parent might consider hitting a child with a paddle to be a justifiable use of corporal punishment. A social worker might consider the same act to be abuse.
Various court decisions involving Section 43 have established that:
Mild spanking is permissible.
Picking up a child and relocating them to a "time-out" place is acceptable, even though some force might be required.
Kicking, strangling or hitting the child's face or genitals is not allowed.
Force is not permissible if the child is over the age of 15.
Some have suggested that if Section 43 were repealed, then any degree of physical force against a child would constitute a criminal act and the adult responsible would have to be charged. This appears to be incorrect. "The common law de minimus rule prevents prosecutions for minor breaches of the law. Provincial guidelines can require education, counselling and practical help to learn other methods of discipline." Also, "reasonable force to prevent a child from hurting others or damaging property would [not] be illegal. Reasonable force in such situations is allowed by other sections of the Criminal Code." 8
Recent history:
1989-NOV-20: The United Nations adopted the Convention on the rights of the Child. 1 Two sections of the Convention that have been interpreted as bearing on discipline are: Article 5:
"States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention."
Article 19.1:
"States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child."
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 Convention.
Early 1990s: Corporal punishment of children was not a high-profile topic. With the exception of Christian schools and some other private schools, punishment of children had been largely abolished as counterproductive. Spanking in the home was in decline. One study showed that only 21% of Canadian parents spanked their children. 2 However, an informal poll in Canadian Living magazine showed that 73% of respondents believed that corporal punishment was appropriate in certain situations. In the mid-1990s, many child psychologists, social workers and others became concerned about the findings of studies into corporal punishment. They started to form organizations to combat punishment. Some had as their goal the repeal of Section 43.
1996-APR: Citizen is a publication of Focus on the Family, a Fundamentalist, international, 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. 3,4 Fundamentalist Christians generally 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, and the children are under the control of both parents.
1996: The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada issued a position paper on corporal discipline. 5 They acknowledge that "some parents resort to physical discipline too quickly and too often..." They suggested that "it would be preferable, and more effective, for the state to launch an education campaign about alternate approaches to discipline." They interpret Article 5 of the Convention as emphasizing the role of parents in bringing up their children. They do not believe that "reasonable physical discipline" violates Section 19.1. The latter requires parents to "protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence" (Emphasis ours). They continued: "every responsible Canadian opposes child abuse.... the issue here is the intrusion of the state into the domain of parental responsibility." They argued that "by criminalizing [corporal punishment], society would be saying that parents cannot be trusted to raise their children."
Unknown date: A private member's bill by Canadian Member of Parliament, Svend Robinson, proposed the repeal of Section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code which permits parents to use "reasonable force" when disciplining children. Like almost all private member's bills, this one died without being voted upon.
2001-Summer: Six children from Alymer, ON , aged six to 14, were taken in to care. Their Fundamentalist Christian parents had allegedly spanked them with paddles. In their belief system, parents are not allowed to strike their children with their hands. The children were returned home after their parents promised to suspend spanking. A trial will start on 2002-MAY-27 to determine if the children need the protection of Family and Children's Services.
2002-JAN: The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling that found that Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada is constitutional. The Government argued that allowing limited corporal punishment does not harm children, and that it "balances the societal interest in sustaining the family unit with the charter rights of the child."
About a week later, L殓er Marketing conducted a cross-Canada survey of adults' beliefs concerning spanking. To the question: "Should the government pass legislation to ban parents from spanking their children:" 69% of Canadian adults said "no."
21.9% said "yes."
9.1% didn't answer.
To the question: "Is a light slap an effective way to make a child think?" 46.9% said "yes."
46.6% said "no."
6.5% didn't answer.
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. 7
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 has placed their web site online. See: http://www.repeal43.org/
