News l Poulin Decision l Church of God Case l Randal Dooley Death l Superior Court Application/Decision l Court of Appeal Decision l National Child Day l Jeffrey Baldwin Death l Articles/Letters 1990 - 2008

Jeffrey Baldwin Death

The following is a story of intergenerational child abuse ending in the appalling death of 5-year-old Jeffrey Baldwin and the conviction of his maternal grandparents for his second-degree murder and the unlawful confinement of one of his sisters. In sentencing, the judge described the grandparent’s offence as one of indescribable cruelty and unimaginable inhumanity. At the time of Jeffrey’s death, the grandparents were about age fifty. The information on the case is pieced together mainly from reports of the trial in the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star. Some questions that the case raises are set out at the end of this summary.

Elva Bottineau, Jeffrey’s grandmother, is from a socially and emotionally impoverished background, has an IQ of 69, and is the seventh in a family of 16 children who lived north of Toronto.  She says she was sexually abused as a child by stepfather and brother and that she left her abusive home at 16 after father physically threatened her and her mother. She was described at trial as suffering from mental and personality disorders and a hostile personality.

At 18, she began living with a distant 16-year-old cousin by whom she had 3 children. In1970, she pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm in the pneumonia death of their 5-month-old daughter. She was given a suspended sentence with 1 year’s probation and her 2 other children, a girl and boy, were made wards of the Crown. The baby’s injuries were found consistent with battered child syndrome.

Norman Kidman, Jeffrey’s grandfather, a maintenance worker for the city,began living with Bottineau in 1975 after she left the cousin. By 1979, they had 3 daughters, Yvonne, Yvette, and Tammy. The 5 and 6-year-old children by Bottineau’s previous relationship also lived with the couple. In 1979, Toronto’s Catholic Children’s Aid Society (CCAS) removed these children because of physical assaults by Kidman. He was convicted of 2 counts of assault causing bodily harm, fined $150 on each count and given a suspended sentence with 2 year’s probation.

Yvonne Kidman, Jeffrey’s mother, and Richard Baldwin, his father, began living together when Yvonne was 16. Richard, age 17, had a learning disability and anger management problem. Their first child was soon born and 3 others, including Jeffrey, followed. Bottineau expressed concerns about the well-being of her daughter’s children and two of them went to live with her and Kidman under private custody arrangements approved by CCAS and family court.

Jeffrey Baldwin, born Jan/97 Jeffrey and his sister (one year older and unnamed for confidentiality reasons) were removed by CCAS in Ap/98 because Yvonne was seen severely shaking Jeffrey. Under a family court order, these 2 children also went to live with the maternal grandparents, Bottineau and Kidman. Although CCAS had information including child abuse convictions on both going back to 1970, these old files were not checked and this information did not come to light in the family court proceedings. At this time, Jeffrey was physically robust but had some emotional problems. At first, he seemed happy with the grandparents. A bruise under the eye was noted by his social worker in 2000 but considered an accident and his CCAS file closed. Jeffrey was never enrolled in kindergarten or daycare and spent the rest of his life basically out of sight.

About a year before his death, the grandparents had spoken to a doctor for an hour asking help for what they described as Jeffrey’s behavioural problems, saying he was restless, disruptive and possibly mentally retarded. The doctor, who did not see Jeffrey, advised them to see a social worker or pediatrician. However, they said they did not do so because they were afraid of being seen as bad parents.

Jeffrey’s paternal grandmother, the mother of Jeffrey’s father, Richard Baldwin, saw Jeffrey a few times while in Bottineau’s care and in summer 1999 said he looked fine. But her last attempt to visit in Dec/99 was refused. She then asked CCAS to arrange visiting for her but was told it could not do so because custody gave Bottineau the final word on family visits. There is no indication she expressed any concerns to CCAS about harm to Jeffrey. If she had done so, CCAS would have had a duty to investigate at that time.

Jeffrey died Nov 30/02 shortly before his sixth birthday of septic shock and bacterial pneumonia brought on by chronic malnutrition and sleeping in his own body waste. He weighed 21 lbs at death, was skin and bone, and covered in sores and bruises. He had been confined to an unheated, locked bedroom at night and slept in his own waste because, according to Bottineau, he could not be toilet trained. He was starved and forced to take his meager food on the floor. Towards the end of his life, he was too weak and ill to walk upstairs. Bruises and marks of old violence on his body showed that Jeffrey had been hit with sticks and spoons. This treatment seems to have gone on for at least a year. None of the adults living in the house mentioned Jeffrey to outsiders or tried to help him in any way.  The 2 children from Bottineau’s previous relationship described their childhood as very similar to that of Jeffrey and his sister.

Jeffrey’s siblings  In her diary, Bottineau described Jeffrey and one of his sisters as “bad disgusting pigs who can’t behave themselves”. She developed a hatred for both but expressed affection for Jeffrey’s younger brother (she had obtained custody of him shortly after birth), describing him as a “young man who stole my heart” and who she thought of as her son rather than grandson. This grandson and his older sister were the “good” children: Jeffrey and his other sister, the “bad” children. All were under age 8 at time of Jeffrey’s death and had been conditioned to believe that if you are “bad” you get hit, starved and locked in a cold, filthy bedroom.

The“bad” sister was locked in the bedroom with Jeffrey under the same conditions. Although she was toilet trained and went to school, she reportedly reeked of urine, wore ill-fitting clothes and had lice and eczema over almost all her body when taken into care on Jeffrey’s death. The grandparents were convicted of unlawful confinement for this treatment.

At the time of Jeffrey’s death, 2 children of another daughter, Tammy Kidman, were also living with the grandparents, making a total of 6 children in the house. In addition to the children, 6 adults, Bottineau, Kidman, daughters Yvette and Tammy, and their boyfriends, were living there. All were schooled not to mention Jeffrey or his sister to anyone outside the family.

James Mills, family friend, was the unemployed boyfriend of the couple’s daughter, Yvette, and was called as a witness. He had moved into the house 5 months before Jeffrey died and lived there almost 2 weeks before he actually saw Jeffrey. Mills, age 21 at Jeffrey’s death, is an only child whose mother had moved north with a new boyfriend. He called Bottineau and Kidman mom and dad and said their household was the only family he had ever known. Mills says he suggested that Jeffrey be taken to hospital but Bottineau rebuffed this suggestion and Mills didn’t pursue it. He did nothing either to help Jeffrey or report his condition – even though he described the child as being on a “death march”.

Jeffrey’s neighbourhood in east Toronto is an ethnically mixed, ordinary area of poor to modest, older houses, some on tree-lined streets. The family had subsidized housing in a 2 story, semi-detached house. A neighbour who lived a few doors away visited Bottineau and Kidman from time to time and helped them use their computer and Bottineau occasionally babysat their pre-teen son. They never saw or heard of Jeffrey and his sister, although the wife had a feeling that 2 other children might be living in house. No other neighbours seem to have had any contact with the couple.

Civil action against adults living in house

Shortly after the murder conviction, Ontario’s Children’s Lawyer filed a civil action for negligence on behalf of Jeffrey and his 3 siblings against the Toronto CCAS, his maternal grandparents, parents, and the two aunts and boyfriends living in the house at the time of Jeffrey’s death. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer is a provincial agency established to protect the property and personal rights of children by pursuing or defending civil actions where there is no parent or guardian to act for them.

Inquest into Jeffrey’s death

In April/06, the Ontario government announced that an inquest would be held into Jeffrey’s death. It will deal with various issues including the role of the CCAS in placing Jeffrey in the Bottineau/Kidman household, how it monitored this placement prior to Jeffrey’s death, and why it failed to check its own records on the couple’s past and convictions for assaults on children. The inquest will take place when any appeals of the Bottineau/Kidman sentences are completed.

Other questions raised by this case

In addition to specific questions about placement and monitoring by the CCAS, the case raises other questions about provincial child protection law and policies and the public responsibility to report suspicions of mistreatment.

Were grandparents’ old files not checked because of provincial policy?

In 1998 when the grandparents were given custody of Jeffrey and his sister, Ontario’s child protection system focused on family preservation and did not require background checks on relatives offering to take in children needing protection. The assumption was that the family could be relied on to provide a safe, caring environment. Only foster parents and adoptive parents were subject to such checks. This seems to be the reason why the Bottineau/Kidman files were not thoroughly reviewed.

This policy contradicts research showing that child abuse tends to be intergenerational. This was certainly the case with Bottineau. She was abused, she abused at least one of her children, her daughter abused Jeffrey, and her other daughters tolerated the abuse of Jeffrey and his sister.

Following Jeffrey’s death, the CCAS began requiring background checks and comprehensive home studies on all potential caregivers, including family members. It retrained its staff in conducting record checks, improved its record keeping system, and ordered an external review of the case, which supported these operational changes. The external review also identified the need to establish provincial standards requiring these checks and assessments and recommended that the province standardize these through regulations to apply throughout the province. In June/05, such amendments to the provincial Child and Family Services Act were proposed and were introduced in 2006.

A similar policy of family preservation may still exist in BC with its “kith-and-kin” program designed to keep aboriginal children in their community. Toddler Sherry Charlie was accordingly placed with an uncle even though his violent past was known. He killed the child some months later in Sept/02. The BC policy has recently been criticized by a judicial inquiry.

Should extra help be given to parents with limited abilities?

Bottineau had an impoverished background, a history of abuse and a low IQ. Nonetheless, she had enough insight to seek advice on handling Jeffrey and was capable of showing affection for other children under her care. The CCAS thought she could manage. Caregivers with such problems, however, need extra help and government funds should be provided for this.

Why did the sister’s school fail to report her condition?

Jeffrey’s sister, who was age 7 at the date of his death, went to public school, presumably for at least a year. At the time of her apprehension, she reeked of urine and was covered with eczema. Schoolteachers and principals are among the professionals who have a duty to report. Yet it appears the school never reported the sister’s condition. In the inquest, information about this abuse will emerge but a separate inquiry may be needed to investigate and recommend what could be done to prevent such lapses in the future.

How can the public be persuaded to report children in need of protection?

Under Ontario’s Child and Family Services Act (CFSA), a person who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child has suffered or is at a risk of suffering harm has a duty to report this to a CAS. However, aside from professionals involved with children, there is no penalty for failing to do so.

A 2005 study for Ontario’s children’s aid societies reported in the Oct 6/05 Windsor Star found that 54% of the public is not willing to report such suspicions. The reasons given were that they think it none of their business, reporting might make the situation worse, or it might have adverse repercussions for them. Where neighbours suspect harm but fail to report it, this fear of repercussions can be a strong deterrent. Ways to encourage such potential reporters should be explored.

In Jeffrey’s case, the live-in boyfriend, Mills, failed to report Jeffrey’s plight because he feared rejection by the Bottineau/Kidman household if he did so. Maintaining his relationship with this newfound family was apparently more important to him than Jeffrey’s life. Introducing a penalty in either the CFSA or the Criminal Code for failure to report in a case like this should be considered. If Mills had thought he would incur serious consequences for failing to report a child on a “death march”, this might have outweighed the importance he attached to maintaining ties with this family.

Are children learning about their rights under the UNCRC?

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was signed and ratified by Canada more than 15 years ago and requires signatories to make its provisions widely known to both adults and children. Article 19 obliges parties to protect children from all forms of violence. But as recently found by the Senate Committee on Human Rights, Canadian children lack an awareness of their rights under the Convention.  If the children in the Bottineau household had learned at school that hitting violates their Convention rights, it is at least possible that some hint of Jeffrey and sister’s condition might have been revealed.

School boards could draft an age-appropriate simplification of these rights. The rights to food, medical care, dignity, and protection from all violence, sexual abuse, and cruel treatment are basic rights that even very young children can be taught to understand. For the public in general, a government-funded educational campaign to promote respect for children and discourage hitting as discipline is needed. To make such a campaign fully effective, s. 43 must be repealed so that the campaign, the Criminal Code, and the Convention all give consistent, rather than contradictory, messages.

Should the Ombudsman havepower to hear complaints about a CAS ?

Back to top

Articles/Letters 2008

2008

The following articles and letters appear as published:

May 21/08  Letter to Windsor Star  Corporal punishment never justified
From time to time, someone will write in defending spanking as if the jury is still out deliberating as to whether parents spanking a child -- corporal punishment -- to correct a behaviour that is not acceptable is right or wrong.

The latest was entitled Cult of the Kid Benefits No One, May 3, in which the writer seems to believe that no right to spank equals no discipline, and ends up saying "spare the rod? Please," suggesting that sparing the rod will not work.

To answer, let me quote from a lecture on Childhood Trauma by Alice Miller in New York City, Oct.22, 1998:

"We all know -- or, today, we should all know -- that physical punishment only produces obedient children but cannot prevent them from becoming violent or sick adults precisely because of this treatment. This knowledge is now scientifically proven and was finally officially accepted by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1998. Contrary to common opinion prevalent as recently as 15 years ago, the human brain at birth is far from being fully developed. It is use-dependent, needing loving stimulation for the child from her first day on. The abilities a person's brain can develop depend on experiences in the first three years of life." (The complete lecture can be found through web search, enter-The Alice Miller Library.)

That was almost 10 years ago, and the proof has increased. The 2005 Repeal 43 Committee folder, End Legal Assaults On Children, lists several examples, Publications Sponsored By Health Canada Advising Against Corporal Punishment, ending with one entitled Nobody's Perfect, 1997:
"It's never OK to spank a child. It's a bad idea and it doesn't work."
EVAN R. GRANT, Kingsville, Ontario

May 13/08 Letter to Windsor Star Choosing respect, peace an investment in child
Re Cult of the Kid, May 3. Letter writer Mr. Derbyshire appears to believe that if parents choose not to spank, they are choosing not to discipline. Well, fortunately for those parents who desire a more peaceful path, there are numerous alternatives that can be utilized instead of corporal punishment. We have several very knowledgeable parent educators within Essex County, as well as a vast array of available literature.

Spanking may be a quick and easy choice, particularly with our busy lifestyles; however, it does not engender mutual respect between parent and child. A parent demonstrates self respect by setting boundaries and guidelines for acceptable behaviour. A parent shows respect for their child by taking the time to learn alternative methods, which do not include physical punishment even if done in a ‘loving manner.” When a child becomes a teenager and life choices become potentially more serious, wouldn’t it be advantageous to develop a solid peaceful relationship to maintain open two-way dialogue?

Windsor recently hosted the Rotary Peace Conference, an important and necessary step toward more peaceful global relationships. We must find ways to learn the art of negotiation and compromise so we can work together toward a common goal.
Let peace begin in our homes.
DEBRA HARSHAW, Windsor

May/08 Article in Today’s Parent  A World without Spanking
By John Hoffman  John Hoffman visits Sweden to report on attitudes to spanking 50 years after Sweden ended its defence to assault (similar to our s. 43) and almost 30 years after making this reform clear in its civil code. His interviews with Swedes showed that most parents think it’s wrong to hit a child. For those parents who continue to hit, the response is an early involvement with families with help and support – not prosecution. Sweden, Hoffman reports, has its share of children’s problems but in a recent UNICEF report on child well being in rich nations, Sweden ranks second. Canada ranked 12th.

Feb 19/08 Letter to Toronto Star Make law of the land official
Re School staff facing assault charges, Feb 16
Your article points out that no Ontario legislation bans corporal punishment in schools. We brought this to the attention of the Ontario government after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2004 that corporal punishment by schoolteachers is “unreasonable” and that they can no longer use the special defence to “correctional” assaults on children given by Section 43 of the Criminal Code.

We asked that the Ontario Education Act ban such punishment to help the public understand that it is no longer legal. Eight other provinces/territories have done so, but the Ontario act remains silent. This new interpretation of this section by the Supreme Court still remains largely unknown to the public.

Without an unequivocal repeal of Section 43 by the federal government and an explicit ban on corporal punishment in provincial laws, too many children will continue to be subjected to this harmful and discriminatory practice. Clarity in the law and public education – rather than relying on judges to interpret the law – are the best ways to make it clear that hitting and strapping are no longer acceptable methods of correcting children.

Ottawa and Queen’s Park should end their silence on this issue.
Corinne Robertshaw, Repeal 43 Committee, Toronto

2007

Oct 10/07 Letter to Kingsville Reporter
An excerpt from Childhood Trauma (Lecture, New York City-1998, Alice Miller Library) states ‘We all know - or, today, we should all know - that physical punishment only produces obedient children but cannot prevent them from becoming violent or sick adults precisely because of this treatment.

This knowledge is now scientifically proven and was finally officially accepted by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1998. Contrary to common opinion prevalent as recently as fifteen years ago, the human brain at birth is far from being fully developed. It is use-dependent, needing loving stimulation for the child from her first day on. The abilities a person's brain can develop depend on experiences in the first three years of life.’ (The Natural Child Project )

We need to repeal section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code that legally allows parents and teachers or anyone on behalf of a parent to hit a child. (A Bill to repeal s. 43 is before parliament now – see www.repeal43.org for details)

See also web sites, Kangaroo Mother Care and NINO – standing for nine in and nine out – that the human gestation period is really 18 months. (It has been shown that children whose needs are met as nature intended starting at pre-birth, grow up being co-operative and considerate of others and self-motivated.)

Healthy parenting can start now with the above and Pam Leo's recent book, Connection Parenting- Parenting through Connection instead of Coercion, Through Love instead of Fear. Christiane Northrup, MD, author of Mother-Daughter Wisdom, writes: "Connection Parenting is utterly transformational. If all parents and grandparents read and applied it's wisdom, the world would be transformed.” Bravo! Suzanne Arms, founder of Birthing The Future, writes: "Connection Parenting contains the sacred grandmother wisdom that will reconnect us with our children." (Many more commendations – Category of book: Parenting/Personal Growth)

For more documentation on the cause of criminal behaviour and mental illness go to the web site, APPPAH - The Association for Pre and Perinatal Psychology and Health.
Evan Grant, Kingsville, Ontario

Aug 13/07 Letter to Windsor Star Repealing section 43 will protect nation’s children
The Windsor Star reported on June 19 that Justice department officials advised the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights of negative implications of repealing Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Physical punishment of children is one of the key factors in substantiated cases of physical injury to children. It is not surprising that a mix of emotion and power imbalance so often leads to injury. Repealing Section 43 would likely prevent thousands of incidents of child abuse and injury every year. Children can be raised successfully without being struck. It’s time we did so across Canada.
Dr. Ralph Billingsley, Psychologist, Chairman, Education Committee, Child Abuse Prevention Council of Windsor and Essex County

Aug 4/07 Letter to Windsor Star Response to spanking law should use common sense
I read your recent editorial entitled Spanking Parent Could Be Hit With Charges and was struck by the fear-mongering tone of your article. Specifically, you described a couple of scenarios that might occur if Sec. 43 of the Criminal Code were to be repealed.

Sec. 43 allows for parents and teachers to use reasonable force to control a child. You suggested that by removing this part of the Criminal Code, the police would be able to, for example, charge a well-intentioned parent who is trying to strap an unwilling child into a car seat, ostensibly they are using force. This is fear-mongering in my view. Rather than to assume the policy would apply the intent of the law, you assumed they would exploit the situation through a technicality. With any law, the police and Crown have the obligation to use discretion in the laying of a charge and the responsibility to determine if there is a reasonable likelihood of a conviction before proceeding with a charge.

While I appreciate that the use of corporal punishment can be "morally driven" behaviour by parents who have been led to believe it is right to "discipline" children in this manner, I would argue the following. The word discipline means "to teach." Discipline is an essential element of child-rearing because it helps to establish limits and teaches self-control. Discipline is characterized by mutual respect and trust, and it includes a belief that the child will be willing to change because of either respect or with greater understanding.
Maureen Reid, Chairwoman, Child Abuse Prevention Council of London and Middlesex

Aug 4/07 Letter to Windsor Star, Feds need to recognize no time is right to hit a child
In response to the Aug .4 Windsor Star column by Antoon Leenaars entitled Make Suicide Prevention a Priority.

Re: Suicide is a major public health problem. Almost 4,000 people take their own lives in Canada every year. I say, start by repealing section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code, so that children in Canada have the same protection against assault as adults. No adult can legally hit another adult in Canada, only children, the most helpless and vulnerable, with s. 43 in place can be legally assaulted for correction by parents. For details go to www.repeal43.org.

Alice Miller talks about suicide in her book, For Your Own Good  – Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence. This book can be read on line by going to the web site www.nospank.net. There is a bill before Parliament now to have s. 43 repealed. I would implore Dr. Leenaars and all to get on board to lobby for s. 43 to be repealed. Parliament will soon be back in session from the summer recess.

Health Canada has been saying for some time "that it is never right to hit a child." Justice Canada needs to get on board, then a full scale program across Canada can be put in place to teach parenting from the heart. This will be for the health of children and adults in all ways. Parents need a Canada support system recognizing children as a priority.
Evan Grant, Kingsville

June 30/07 Letter to Windsor StarDon't lower serious issue to the level of the absurd
Re: Editorial Let Parents Be Parents. Justice department lawyers who claim that putting a screaming toddler in a car seat or forcing one to wear boots instead of sandals could result in assault charges are reducing a serious issue to the level of the absurd.

Whether we should maintain Section 43 of the Criminal Code has absolutely nothing to do with such situations and everything to do with this section's justification of physical punishment. Research shows that at least 10,000 childhood injuries each year begin with hitting and spanking as "correction." Prosecuting abuse cases to the full extent of the law is an after-the-fact response. Preventing them must start with repealing this 1892 defence of assaults on children and educating the public on alternative approaches to discipline.

This legal licence to hit has not "worked well for more than 112 years," as you assert. This is not borne out by judicial decisions allowing harmful and humiliating hitting of children under Section 43. The Supreme Court's craven decision that continues to allow two-year-olds to be hit by parents simply reinforces this 19th-century attitude to children. The Senate is showing leadership where others prefer to confuse the public with straw arguments.
Corinne Robertshaw, Repeal 43 Committee, Toronto

June 30/07 Article in Ottawa Citizen Only the smallest can be hit
By Peter M. Dudding, Executive Director, Child Welfare League of Canada, Ottawa
As Andrea Mrozek and Dave Quist wrote in a Citizen op-ed last Monday ("Spanking is not child abuse"), most parents love their children and want to be great parents. But most learn parenting on the job. Often, spanking is an emotional reaction that parents soon regret. And sometimes parents spank because their own parents did, so they are unaware of better solutions.

One problem with spanking is that it doesn't teach children what we really want them to learn. It doesn't teach them how to resolve conflict, deal with frustration or express themselves appropriately. In fact, it models the opposite behaviours. Studies have consistently shown that even "everyday" forms of physical punishment predict higher levels of aggression in children, poorer parent-child relationships, and poorer mental health. Research clearly shows that ongoing physical punishment places children's healthy development at risk over the long term.

Another problem with spanking is that it can easily lead to injury. Most parents who injure their children do not set out to harm them; most intend to discipline them. But the situation can escalate easily. A large Canadian study found that children who are spanked are seven times more likely to also experience severe violence (punching, kicking, choking) than those who are never spanked. Hitting a child in a highly emotional situation is a high-stakes response. If the child does not -- or cannot -- comply, the parent is likely to increase the intensity of the force. Given their size and strength difference, physical conflict between an adult and a child can easily end in injury.

Is this situation just a rarity? According to the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, in 2003 alone there were more than 18,000 substantiated cases of physical maltreatment that took place in disciplinary situations. Family violence researchers have known for decades that most of what we call physical abuse actually is physical punishment -- and that most abusive parents believe that their acts were justified.

Canada's law confirms this belief. Our law, which dates from 1892, explicitly states that physical punishment is "justified." Over the past century, legal justifications for physical punishment of prisoners, apprentices and sailors have been removed from the Criminal Code because it was recognized that physical punishment was not a constructive way to change adults' behaviour and that it opened the door to increasingly severe violence. It is now only our smallest and most physically vulnerable citizens -- children -- who can legally be hit. It is time that our laws reflect our knowledge and values about healthy child development.

By removing the legal justification for physical punishment of children, Canada would send a message that children are not to be hit. As a result, parents would be less likely to hit their children, fewer children would be harmed, and professionals could offer support to families long before a child is injured. The government's own efforts to prevent violence against children would no longer be undermined by a law that states that hitting them is justified.

Canada is not the first country to consider this issue. Nineteen countries have laws stating that children cannot be hit. There are no "spanking police" in these countries. Their laws are meant to shift attitudes and deter parents from hitting their children. As a result, prosecution of parents becomes less likely. In Sweden, law reform has been followed by more supportive and preventive child-welfare measures, decreased youth involvement in crime, lower alcohol and drug use by youth, and lower youth suicide rates. Contrary to Ms. Mrozek's and Mr. Quist's claims, there has not been a rise in youth violence there; reporting rates have increased because of anti-bullying campaigns, but there is no evidence that the true rate of violence has increased.

More than 260 professional organizations support the removal of the law that justifies physical punishment of children. Children need discipline that is effective, not harmful.

Most parents do not want to spank their children. Rather than encouraging parents to continue doing so, we hope family and community organizations continue to provide constructive support and information that parents need to move beyond spanking their children. And we hope all Canadians will join the global effort to prevent violence against children.
Peter M. Dudding, Executive Director, Child Welfare League of Canada, Ottawa

Comment: At the June 18/07 hearings before the Senate Committee on Human Rights, Dave Quist identified himself as Exec. Director, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, which he described as a research think tank. Andrea Mrozek appeared with him. When Senator Munson asked “Who is the Institute?’ Mr. Quist replied that it was established in Ottawa 18 months ago and is the policy research arm of Focus on the Family Canada.

American psychologist and right-wing republican, James Dobson, the founder and International President of FOF, writes parenting books advising parents to hit children as young as 15-months with an object such as a switch for ‘wilful disobedience’. His books are publicized by FOF Canada. When asked by Senator Carstairs about this advice, Mr. Quist replied that since the Supreme Court has prohibited anything other than an open hand (in hitting children), ‘we would have to abide by the court’s ruling in this case.’

June 29/07 Letter to Windsor Star  Comments likely to delay changes to Criminal Code
The testimony given by Justice department officials to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, as reported in The Windsor Star June 19, is misleading and harmful. It is misleading because it suggests the justice system would countenance reckless and pointless prosecution of parents for performing the normal and caring duties of parenting. It is harmful because it delays the inevitable repeal of Section 43 of the Criminal Code -- the Canadian law that denies children the same protection from assault granted by Canadian law to every adult.
Ron Enson, Ottawa

June 27 Letter to National Post Spanking: It’s assault
Re: Spanking isn’t a crime, editorial, June 21  Hitting a child as a method of discipline causes at least 10, 000 injuries of Canadian children each year.  If your editorial board wants to engage in a rational dialogue with readers on the law that justifies this hitting, you could read this research. It is on our Web site. But if you don’t want to face these facts, you can instead label those who address them as ‘nitwits’. This takes less thinking.
Corinne Robertshaw, Repeal 43 Committee, Toronto

June 5/07 Letter to California newspapers  State gives green light to child beaters
Assemblywoman Sally Lieber’s courageous, forward-looking bill which would have given California children partial protection against assault and battery — a protection that all other citizens take for granted — has been bullied into oblivion. How did that happen?

The bill’s opponents refused to evaluate it on its merits. They ducked every opportunity to engage in an honest debate based on the facts. They seemed indifferent to, or willfully ignorant of, the ethical considerations that arise when an inferiorclass of citizen is afforded less-than-equal protection of the law. They ignored the long-standing consensus of scientific opinion on the subject. And they refused to examine how reforms similar to this bill have functioned over time elsewhere in the developed world.

Instead, they regurgitated the time-honored, unctuous bromides about the sanctity of the family, and about the need for government to keep its nose out of people’s private lives — exactly the same arguments that until recently gave spouse batterers near-total immunity. They mounted a clever propaganda campaign that wildly exaggerated the bill's presumed punitive intentions, e.g., "to turn loving parents into criminals," and that trivialized the abusive behaviors it was intended to curb, e.g., "giving a naughty child a loving tap on the bottom to get his attention." It worked.

In rejecting a measure that would have protected many California children from mistreatment, injury and, in some cases, death, this legislature set a new low standard in the annals of state government for cowardly abrogation of moral responsibility. While pretending to protect "The Family," it turned its back on the children. It declined to extend the most basic of human rights — the right to be safe from assault and battery — to the state’s most vulnerable citizens.
Jordan Riak, Exec. Dir. Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education (PTAVE)

Note: The above letter was sent to 11 California papers but not published.

The following is a translation of an article that appeared in L'eau vive, a Saskatchewan French-language newspaper. The author is a retired social worker. The French original is shown below.

May 3/07 L'EAU VIVE, Corporal punishment
ByTHÉRÈSE LEFEBVRE PRINCE, Yorkton, Sask

It is difficult to understand the nostalgia that certain persons have for old-time methods of punishment for children and young adolescents. Some articles in newspapers seem to indicate that problems with young people stem from the fact that authority figures have lost the right to inflict these good old fashioned punishments! This in spite of studies done across the world that show the negative results of corporal punishment and the efforts made by the UN with regard to the rights of the child. Since time immemorial, many children have been struck by their parents, grandparents, teachers and even uncles, aunts, sitters, visitors, etc. Multiply this during a 12-year period of their existence! It is unfortunately the plight of many, even in our day.

I was 15 years old, when a teacher struck me across the face. He had told me not to help another student who was getting more and more upset with her Algebra problem. I helped her again, defying the teacher’s orders. I have never thought that I “deserved” this slap. I have no respect for that man, even sixty years later. It was simple, all he had to say was; “ You want to help her, well you will both stay after school for an hour and you can show her how to solve the problem.” I was lucky though compared to many other children. My parents did not have strong convictions as some did in favour of corporal punishment. Furthermore, they were opposed to the injustice, too popular in those days, where a child was punished twice; once at school and again on coming home. 

We were all raised in a society said to be “democratic” yet violence was accepted. An adult could strike a little person. Even in the 1950s, a man could strike his wife without any great fear of the law. The “bullies” are not a new phenomenon: they existed long ago and reigned supreme in the schoolyard, etc. We became conditioned to this violence. 

What can be done?

• Put aside pride, admit our personal errors—our actions, our attitudes towards this accepted violence of the old days and still present today.

• Recognize that we are all victims of our time.

• Learn to teach without striking; there are many other methods of discipline.

• Support striking down Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

• Reject the misinterpreted proverbs of the Old Testament such as: “Spare the rod, and spoil the child.”  There is nothing in the New Testament that teaches corporal punishment of children. On the contrary, it says clearly: Whatsoever you do to these little ones, you do unto me!

May 3/07 Article L'EAU VIVE, Punitions corporelles
PAR THÉRÈSE LEFEBVRE PRINCE, Yorkton, Sask.
Il est difficile d'essayer de comprendre la nostalgie que certaines personnes ont pour les anciennes méthodesde punir les enfants et les jeunes adolescents. Il y a quelques mois un article dans L'Eau Vive semblait indiquer que les problèmes de la jeunesse d'aujourd'hui existent parce que les gens en autorité n'ont plus le droit d'infliger les bonnes punitions d'autrefois! Celà en dépit de toutes sortes d'études à travers le monde quiindiquent les résultats négatifs de la punition corporelle et des efforts fournis par les Nations-Unies pour les droits de l'enfant. Depuis toujours, plusieurs se sont fait frapper presque chaque jour par leurs parents, grand-parents, instituteurs, parfois même oncles, tantes, gardiennes, visiteurs etc. Multipliez celà pendant 12 ans de leur existence ! C'est malheureusement le sort de beaucoup, même de nos jours !

A 15 ans, un professeur m'a donné une claque au visage. Il m'avait interdit d'aider une autre élève. Elle, toute énervée, n'arrivait pas à faire son devoir. Je l'ai aidée une deuxième fois, défiant ainsi le professeur. Je n'ai jamais pensé avoir ¨mérité¨cette claque!  Je n'ai eu aucun respect pour cet homme, encore moins 60 ans plustard! C'était simple, il n'avait qu'à dire: “tu veux vraiment l'aider? alors tu resteras après les classes et tu l'aideraspendant une heure.”¨Moi, j'étais chanceuse, comparée à trop d'autres enfants. Mes parents (nés dans les années 1890 ) n'avait pas de fortes convictions pour la punition corporelle. De plus, ils étaient opposés à la très grande injustice trop populaire autrefois, de punir une deuxième fois, de retour à la maison!

Nous avons tous été élevés dans une société dite ¨démocratique¨où la violence était acceptée. Un adulte pouvait frapper légalement une toute petite personne. En 1910-20 et même en 1950, un homme pouvait  frapper son épouse sans grande crainte de la loi. Les ¨bullies¨ ne sont pas un nouveau phénomène: depuis jadis ils régnaient suprême dans la cour de l'école etc.

Nous sommes devenus conditionnés à cette violence.

Que faire ?

1. Mettre de côté l'orgueil, admettre nos erreurs personnelles—nos actions, nos attitudes envers la violence encore de nos jours acceptée, et celles des âges. ( Il y en a aujourd’hui qui reconnaissent leurs fautes et disent “J’aurais pas du faire cela!”)

2. Reconnaître que nous sommes tous des victimes de notre temps.

3. Apprendre à éduquer sans frapper, il y a beaucoup d'autres méthodes de discipline.

4. Supporter l'abolition de l'Article 43 du Code Criminel du Canada.

5. Rejeter les dictons mal interprétés de l'Ancien-Testament comme celui-ci : ¨Si tu ne corriges pas l'enfant avec une verge,il sera gâté. ¨Spare de Rod and Spoil the Child.

6. Il n'y a rien dans le Nouveau-Testament qui indique des punitions corporelles pour enfants. Au contraire, on nous dit clairement: “CE QUE VOUS FAITES AU PLUS PETIT D'ENTRE LES MIENS, C'EST À MOI QUE VOUS LE FAITES”

(20 ans travailleuse sociale.)

April 26/07Article in Winnipeg Free Press Spare the rod, spare the child
Spanking does not encourage learning, quite the opposite
BY LIBBY SIMON, Winnipeg

The broad acceptance of physical punishment is a world-wide issue.

According to Penelope Leach, a British pediatrician and parent educator, a random sample of British children at the age of four years indicated that 97 per cent were spanked. The United States reported that more than 90 per cent of all parents slap or spank their children. In Canada, 75 per cent of Canadian parents use spanking as a regular method of discipline, according to a 1995 University of Manitoba study by Drs. Durrant and Rose-Krasnor.

What's so wrong with a spanking? There is a growing body of evidence, which contradicts the use of corporal punishment as a teaching tool. In fact, studies show it has the exact opposite effect in increasing aggressive behaviour and providing children with a model of using violence as a problem-solving option.

Leach suggests using your own observations if you are still not convinced. If children have learned from having been spanked you would expect that they would need it less often. But in fact, what is more likely to happen is that the level of punishment must be increased, hence the danger of it escalating into abuse.

A number of countries have already instituted legislation prohibiting its use as a regular parenting tool.

They include Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Cyprus, Latvia, Croatia, Israel, Germany, Italy and most recently, Scotland for children under the age of three, according to the Repeal 43 Committee.

The Repeal 43 Committee (www.repeal43.org) in Canada continues to follow their lead to have this archaic (1892) and draconian law removed.

At present, it allows teachers, parents and guardians to use 'reasonable' force by way of correction, the term 'reasonable' providing a wide latitude of legal interpretation. When something is entered into law, it sets guidelines, expectations and standards by which a society ought to live. The purpose is not to criminalize parents but to provide direction for the appropriate discipline of young children.

The extensive research alone showing the negative impact of physical punishment should be reason enough. But there are additional bases that justify change to this approach to discipline.

According to Abraham Maslow, world-renowned psychologist, feelings of safety and security are one of the basic human needs second only to air, food and shelter. Humans need to feel free from any real or perceived danger to maximize their full developmental potential. How safe can a child feel if the person who is supposed to nurture and provide protection becomes the attacker? In the eyes of a small, helpless child, this powerful, angry giant can appear very frightening indeed.

Control through fear may work temporarily but does not develop internal discipline. The child will behave only under external controls that can continue into adulthood, not to mention triggering feelings of resentment and anger that fester into revenge behaviours.

But children are not capable of organizing and have no political voice. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child spoke for them in 1989 and determined children have the same rights as all human beings. They have a right to grow up in a safe and secure environment.

While it is unfortunate that laws should be required to enforce humane care of our children, I would hope that reason and understanding may also persuade some that non-violence is the best teacher. We start with the premise that most parents want to help their children develop not only into well-behaved, socialized human beings, but to be happy and healthy adults as well. It is not the intent but the method that presents problems. What behaviours we, as parents, choose to reach that goal will depend on our knowledge and beliefs.

Our choices are based on a belief system that originates from various sources, such as our own childhood experiences, our religious views or simply a lack of knowledge. Historically, the view of the nature of the child has changed over the centuries. For example, at one time the child was seen as inherently bad – a creature actively seeking to "get away with" or "oppose the norms." This "badness" had to be "corrected" by the use of physical punishment in order to "knock it out to ensure the future of cooperative citizens.

But our understanding of the nature of the child has changed. When childhood was eventually identified as a unique stage of human growth our knowledge of child development exploded. Extensive research and studies for over a century has led to our present understanding of the child as being neither good nor bad. Children behave to get their needs met, as we all do. Their behaviours will be directed according to what is socially acceptable in a particular family and environment.

The concept of parenting skills and the role of parents have emerged as central in response to this new information. As children develop, their needs change and parenting is a constant challenge that requires knowledge, intelligence, patience, creativity and yes – discipline.

But discipline and punishment are not synonymous. Discipline is defined as teaching, while punishment is defined as causing or inflicting pain (in one form or another). It is generally accepted that people do not learn well under stress or pain, so punishment in the form of spanking is a poor teacher. Yet, despite our present knowledge, these beliefs are still very much with us today.

While SpankOut Day encourages parents and caregivers to set aside one day not to hit children, the goal is to expand that to 365 spank-free days through awareness and education.

"To get where we want to go with our children we need to take a longer route, teaching them with our heads and hearts rather than with our hands and belts," Penelope Leach says.

SpankOut Day on April 30

On April 30, a special day will be set aside in the U.S. and many countries around the world called SpankOut Day.

It is sponsored by the Center for Effective Discipline, the headquarters for EPOCH-U.S., an acronym for End Physical Punishment of Children. Coalitions in various parts of Canada also participate in planning events to promote this day as part of the Global Initiative to End Physical Punishment of Children (www.endcorporalpunishment.org).

These groups are maintained by several organizations that include the Canadian Institute of Child Health, the Canadian Public Health Association and the Child Welfare League of Canada, which endorse similar objectives.

The purpose is to bring attention to the negative impact of corporal punishment and to promote non-violent discipline. All parents, guardians and caregivers are encouraged to refrain from hitting children on this day and seek alternative methods available through programs in their communities (www.stophitting.com/spankOut/toolkit.php).

April 17/07 Letter to Toronto Star Callwood’s wish in Senate’s hands
Re Saint June, April 15
The biggest part of June Callwood’s heart was reserved for her work on behalf of children. She wrote the justice minister asking him to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which justifies corporal punishment. The issue of Section 43 is currently before the Senate and we believe it will recommend ending this unjust and harmful 1892 defence to assaults on children. If it does, Saint June will be cheering.
Corinne Robertshaw, Repeal 43 Committee,Toronto

Back to top

2006

Oct 18/06 Letter in Ottawa Citizen Protect children from corporal punishment
Re: Child Protection, Oct 16.
As your editorial on the United Nations study on violence against children rightly notes, children have less protection than any other group in society. The UN study recognizes this and therefore calls on member states to end adult justification of violence against children in the name of tradition or disguised as discipline.

The Canadian example of the latter is Section 43 of the Criminal Code that allows corporal punishment of children for “correction”. In its split 2004 decision, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada perpetuated this inequality by upholding this 1892 section if limited in the ways set out by the Court. This judicial rewriting of Section 43 is a primer on when, where and how to hit children and is clearly at odds with the UN study. As your editorial states, there is a tendency to regard children as the property of adults. Section 43 reflects this 19th century belief.

MPs now have a chance to begin the process of ending this unequal and harmful anachronism by supporting Senate Bill S-207. It calls for repeal of Section 43 with time for public education before coming into force. I urge any who are still uncommitted to respect the UN study and support this long-overdue reform of our law.
Corinne Robertshaw, Toronto, Founder and co-ordinator,
Repeal Criminal Code Section 43 Committee

Oct 18/06  Letter in Ottawa Citizen  Impact of violence
The Citizen editorial commending the UN secretary general’s study on violence against children and the need for action is spot on. The extent and nature of violence against children documented in the report is almost unimaginable.

The extensive research linking children’s experiences of violence to the development of violent behaviour as they grow into adults is now irrefutable. And common sense should surely tell us that if the world’s children are not protected from violence, the world will never be free of violence in all its forms.
Ron Ensom, Ottawa

Jan 24/06  Letter in Globe and Mail Making a difference
Having coached youth fastball for 17 years and been a scoutmaster for the past 20, I have kept a clipping by my bulletin board that says it all: “A hundred years from now, it won’t matter what kind of car you drove, how big your house was, nor how much money you had in the bank. But the world may be changed because you made a difference in the life of a child.”
John Barker, Sarnia, Ont.

2005

Nov 25/05  Letter in Toronto Star  Need an inquest into Baldwin case
Re: Boy’s sister reeked of urine, witness says. Nov. 22.
Your report states that Jeffrey Baldwin’s seven-year old sister was reeking of urine at the time she was apprehended. Presumably she was also reeking of urine when she went to school. Either the school failed to report this to the authorities, or, if reported, the report was not acted upon. If the school failed to report this child as needing protection, the school should be required to answer for its failure. If a report were made, but not investigated, children’s aid failed both Jeffrey and his sister. There are many questions that need to be answered. An inquest is essential to answer these and other questions about this horrific case.
Ruth Miller, Toronto

Nov 2/05 Letter in Toronto Star  Constructive step out of boy’s death
Re Remembering little Jeffrey Oct. 31. The best way to remember Jeffrey Baldwin is to hold accountable those who in future fail to report that a child’s life is being seriously endangered by his caregivers. This would require a change in federal and provincial laws to make such failure an offence subject to a substantial penalty.  If the public had such a legal duty to report life-threatening abuse, other Jeffreys might be saved in time. This is one constructive step that could come out of Jeffrey’s appalling life and death. The minister of justice and provincial child protection ministers should take it.
Corinne Robertshaw, Repeal 43 Committee, Toronto

Oct 6/05 Letter in Globe and Mail  Duty to report abuse
Re As Little Jeffrey Sobbed And Suffered His Death Throes, Down The Hall, James Mills Kept Playing Video Games(Oct 1): Five-year-old Jeffrey Baldwin is abused and starved to death while six adults, including a non-family member, live in the house for at least part of this time. The two grandparents are now on trial for murder. But none of the others have committed any offence by failing to alert authorities to Jeffery’s plight.  Neither our Criminal Code nor Ontario’s child protection legislation penalize such a failure. True, the latter requires everyone to report abuse, but except for professionals, carries no penalty for failing to do so. And for them, the penalty is no more than a $1000 fine.

Before another Jeffrey suffers such an appalling life and death, we ask federal and provincial ministers to amend the law to require the public to report such cases—or face a substantial penalty for failing to do so.
Corinne Robertshaw, Repeal 43 Committee, Toronto

Oct 6/05  Letter in Toronto Star  Repeal legal license to hit
Re Cases of child abuse, neglect soar Oct. 4  The study released by Public Health Minister Carolyn Bennett shows an estimated 25,000 cases of physical abuse of children, not including Quebec children, were reported and substantiated in 2003.

As the lead investigator stated, many of these cases involved corporal punishment. This questionable method of discipline is justified by section 43 of the Criminal Code, a 19th century defence to parental assaults on children. We urge our federal politicians to end this harmful message by repealing this legal license to hit our most vulnerable citizens.
Corinne Robertshaw, Repeal 43 Committee, Toronto

2004

Dec 22/04 Letter to Windsor Star Physical Punishment harmful for instilling discipline in kids
This is in response to Pastor Walt Bartel’s letter, Proper Spanking Can Help a Child (Dec 9). The pastor’s letter conveys the message that physical punishment such as spanking is not harmful and is an effective methods of discipline. Scientific research shows that physical punishment is in fact harmful and not a good way to discipline children. The research indicates that children who are subjected to physical punishment, such as spanking, are more likely to become physically aggressive toward siblings and family members, commit crimes and suffer emotional problems, such as depression and low self-esteem. As adults, they are more likely to use physical force against their partner and/or children.

Physical punishment such as spanking places children at an increased risk of child abuse. According to the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, the majority of substantiated investigations of physical abuse involved inappropriate punishment; 69 per cent. The purpose of physical punishment is to inflict some discomfort or pain on the child to correct improper behaviour. Physical punishment has the potential to escalate into physical harm or worse, abuse. It is easy to lose control and hurt someone when angry.

Many people in our society believe physical punishment is an effective method of teaching children right from wrong. Yes, it may stop a child from misbehaving at that moment. However, it is not an effective method of discipline. Discipline means to teach, not punish. Discipline is about teaching a child how to make good choices, have self-control and to have respect for him/herself and others. Physical punishment does not teach a child how to behave. It does not teach a child why a behaviour is wrong, or show the child the right way to behave. Instead, physical punishment teaches a child that hitting is OK, and that it is OK to hit if you are bigger and stronger.

There are different methods of effective discipline and many may need to be tied before one works. Even the best method may not work all the time. Children are not always predictable. Parenting is the most important task there is, and at times it can be very frustrating. Discipline takes time, patience and sometimes help from others. There are organizations in our area, such as the Windsor Essex County Health Unit, which offer free parent workshops, information on discipline, and there are also many books and internet sites available to help parents.
Elizabeth Dulmage, Manager, Comprehensive School Health Dept., Windsor Essex County Health Unit.

Dec 15/04 Letter to Windsor Star When spanking, what is ‘reasonable force?’
I would like to respond to Pastor Walt Bartel’s belief that proper spanking can help a child. I’m just curious if he has read anything about child development or discipline other than the Bible.

It frustrates me to hear people say that parenting is instinctual. If rearing children is the most important task you will face in your lives, doesn’t it deserve a little research? Any professional caregivers or parents who devote time and dedication to researching this touchy subject will find that spanking is not the answer. There is a considerable amount of material out there to assist caregivers in discipline strategies that are not harmful to children.

Discipline is about teaching a child what they have done is wrong, giving them ownership of the problem and giving them ways to solve it. It really works. You don’t have to ridicule or instill fear in them to get compliance. Most importantly, it leaves the child feeling loved, respected and competent.

Current law allows for punishing children with reasonable force. Who is to decide exactly what reasonable force is? Many child abusers who have seriously harmed children have used this law to their advantage to avoid punishment.
M. Chlumecky, Windsor

Oct 28/04 Letter to National Post Spare the Rod
Re: Spare the Rod and Calm the Child: Oct. 26.
Thank you for your front-page coverage of this important Statistics Canada study showing that physical punishment substantially increases aggressive behaviour, such as fighting and bullying, in children. This is the latest in a long list of studies in Canada and elsewhere that come to the same conclusion.

As the spokesperson for the Vanier Institute of the Family indicated, parents generally discipline the only way they know. For too many, spanking and other forms of physical punishment are a tradition they inherited. Our government could help end this harmful tradition by repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code — the defence to “reasonable” assaults for “correction” that entered our Code in 1892.

The National Post could also help to end this practice by changing its approach to the issue. Could you therefore please spare us further editorials like yours of Oct. 10, advising parents to ‘Spank away’?
Corinne Robertshaw, Repeal 43 Committee, Toronto

NB: The Oct 10 editorial referred to in last sentence refers to an Oct 10 editorial in 2003. The year was omitted in the published version.

Oct 22/04 Letter to Windsor Star Repeal Section 43 and end doubt about abuse
The Supreme Court decision you refer to in your October 13 editorial “Section 43—Issue has been settled” is by no means the last word on this 1892 defense to “correctional” assaults on children. The Court’s checklist of when, where, how, and by whom children can be hit will continue to confuse the public and the courts. It will increase the need for prosecutions in a fruitless attempt to determine the meaning of this revised hitting license. Since the wording has not been changed, section 43 will continue to proclaim that schoolteachers, parents and persons acting as parents are “justified” in using “reasonable” force to punish children.

If, as you state, it would be better for accountable legislators to tackle the spanking issue, then Parliament would have to write these Supreme Court limitations into the Criminal Code. This, however, would simply put a new stamp of approval on hitting two-year-old children, at a time when virtually all evidence shows that hitting and threats of hitting are harmful and risk the kind of mental and physical injury commonly termed abuse.

Rather than tinkering with the section, our legislators should repeal it. This would give a clear and unambiguous message that hitting children is no longer approved by our law. Instead of prosecutions, parents could be helped to learn methods of discipline that protect and respect children. This is not the state trying to raise kids. It is society helping and encouraging parents to protect and respect kids.
Corinne Robertshaw, Repeal 43 Committee, Toronto

Oct 7/04 Letter to Ottawa Citizen Poor Logic shows weakness of case against spanking ban
Re Spanking ban a step too far, Oct. 4 Your editorial shows the poverty of arguments against the banning of spanking. “To legally ban spanking” does not put “the state squarely in the family rooms of the nation without a compelling reason” any more than laws against spousal abuse (or laws against assault in general) do. Nor is it a big step for parents to “face legal sanction” for spanking children. Parents already face legal sanction on a number of fronts for inappropriately disciplining their children, and this only adds one more instance.

As for the editorial’s suggestion that banning spanking could lead to laws making sunhats mandatory or banning junk food, these metaphorical arguments are notoriously weak in nature, showing the strain required to make an argument that does not rest on logic. Freedom of choice is hardly a workable defence in most cases of assault, and children cannot consent to being assaulted as some adults might.

Spanking only teaches children to resolve their problems with violence. If we can all agree that the reasonable resolution of disputes within a due process is preferable to violent anarchy, then we can all agree that spanking should be illegal.
Vincent J. Guihan, Ottawa

July 13/04 Letter to Ottawa Citizen Legal support for spanking gives wrong lessons
Re: Wise alternatives to a spanking ban, July 11. The idea that hitting “short of actual or grievous bodily harm” is a good and proper way to discipline children is one of several misconceptions in Peter Zimonjic’s column. There is nothing wise about this House of Lords compromise. [See July 5 news item] Legal approval of hitting puts children at risk of psychological and physical harm and teaches that hitting is an acceptable way to show disapproval. This is not the way to protect children. It is not the lesson their role models should provide. It is not the way to uphold a child’s fundamental right to dignity and physical security.

The idea that ending this 19th century defence to parental assaults would result in criminal charges against “every parent, everywhere in Canada or Britain, who hit a child” is nonsense. Minor breaches of the law are not prosecuted because it is not in the public interest to do so. This common-sense, common law rule has long been recognized by our justice system and prevents the alarmist “mountain of charges” predicted by Mr. Zimonjic.

His hope that the limitations on “reasonable force” set out in January’s Supreme Court of Canada decision will enable parents to know where to draw the line on hitting is an illusion. [Does he think parents read Supreme Court decisions? Latter sentence omitted by editor.] What most parents have learned from that one is that section 43 of our Criminal Code allowing reasonable hitting is alive and well. What some of these parents consider reasonable might shake his complacency.

Mr. Zimonjic’s suggestion that those opposing section 43 should instead be campaigning for shelters for abused women shows his lack of insight into spousal assault. Many of the men these women are fleeing got their how-to lessons at the hands of their parents.
Corinne Robertshaw, Toronto, Co-ordinator, Repeal 43 Committee

July 10/04 Letter to Globe and Mail Appeased, not forgiven
I was truly saddened to see A. Lawrence Healey’s interpretation (The First Steps—letter, July 9) about the two young Blackstock boys’ willingness to forgive their adoptive parents for the horrific abuse they suffered for so many years.

I think a more accurate interpretation would be that these children are suffering from Stockholm syndrome, whereby victims of abuse, isolated from outside support, come to relate to their abusers and shape their actions in a manner that they perceive will not displease the abusers. It is quite likely that the boys’ willingness to forgive merely stems from a desire to appease their adoptive parents rather than from any deeper understanding of what has transpired.

In all the media reports that I have read about this tragic case, I have not seen any indication that the abusers feel any remorse for their gruesome behaviour. Without remorse, do they really deserve to be forgiven?
Jane Gauthier, Ottawa

July 7/04 Letter to Globe and Mail Shame on system
Re Couple Gets Nine Months for Caging Adopted Sons (On-line edition—July 5): I am appalled and disgusted with this sentence. Thirteen years of abuse and torture of two children, robbing them of their childhood and inflicting damage that not even a lifetime of therapy can hope to cure, and what does the judge consider to be justice? Nine months in jail with a possibility of parole in three months. I’m sure there are longer sentences given for non-violent crimes every day.
Claudia Schiffo, Gateneau, Quebec

July 6/04 Letter to Globe and Mail Inadequate sentence
Re Couple Gets Nine Months For Caging Adopted Sons (on-line edition—July 5): This case illustrates why Canadian society needs a fundamental change of attitude when it comes to the way we regard children. Can anyone imagine the prison sentence similar offenders would have received if they had caged and beaten an adult for more than a decade?

Recent court decisions allowing for the corporal punishment of children have debased their value as human entities so that abuses perpetrated against children are just regarded as a parent going too far, rather than as humiliating and despicable crimes. It is only by recognizing that children have the absolute human right of being protected against all assaults on their person that we can precipitate the fundamental change of attitude necessary to better protect children against abusers.
J. Andres Hannah-Suarez, Toronto

June 19/04 Letter to Globe and Mail Repeal 'discipline' law
Re Farah's Stepmother Sentenced (June 15): Five-year-old Farah Khan might be alive today if it were clear that parents had no legal right to strike their children. Farah was a bright child and, had she learned this in her months at kindergarten, she might have told a teacher or neighbour of the bruising "discipline" she was receiving at home. Children's Aid would have investigated and her death could have been prevented.
Section 43 of our Criminal Code, however, allows "reasonable" corporal punishment and this makes it difficult to teach children to ask for help. As long as this section remains, other children will suffer and some will die. We must repeal this licence to hit and make children aware of their right to a non-violent upbringing. We owe this to Farah.
Corinne Robertshaw, Repeal 43 Committee, Toronto

May/04 Parkhurst Exchange Supreme court decision on spanking

Head to Head EXPERTS TAKE A STAND

Supreme Court decision on spanking
Section 43 of the Criminal Code
Correction of Child by Force
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.

Should section 43 allowing parents to hit their kids be repealed?

PRO Law doesn’t reflect today’s values
BY Corinne Robertshaw, BA (Hons), LL.B

On January 30, 2004, Canada’s Supreme Court limited Section 43 of the Criminal Code, but failed to end it. The action to strike down this1892 defence to correctional assaults by schoolteachers and parents was therefore only a partial victory. It’s now up to Parliament either to write these limitations into the Code or repeal the section completely.

The section was challenged on two main grounds. The first was that it’s too vague, therefore violating a fundamental principle that criminal law must be clear. The second was that it discriminates against children by depriving them of equal protection and benefit of the law against assault. As a result, Section 43 violates the Charter and is unconstitutional.

The majority of the Court addressed these arguments by rewriting Section 43 — and then finding it constitutional. Through rewording, it decided that Section 43 doesn’t allow any corporal punishment by schoolteachers, or by parents or substitute parents of a child with a disability, or that involves objects, or blows to the head. It held that children under two years or over 12 cannot be physically punished, and that only “minimal, transient or trivial” punishment can be used within this age group.

What should Parliament do?

Justices Arbour and Deschamps strongly dissented from this judicial rewriting. Constitutionality, they held, must be determined on the basis of the law as it is, not on how the Court thinks it should be. Only Parliament can amend the law to such an extent. They held that section 43 violates the Charter and must be struck down.

Amendment would continue to put a government seal of approval on hitting young children and persist in putting them at risk of physical and psychological harm. The Canadian Paediatric Society recently reviewed available research and concluded that disciplinary spanking is associated with negative outcomes for children. It strongly recommends against such punishment. Health Canada’s Incidence Study on reports of abuse finds that physical abuse usually starts with hitting as discipline and then escalates into actual injury.

Health and child protection workers note that Section 43 undermines efforts to promote positive, non-violent discipline. They recognize that preventing harm to children by ending the culture of corporal punishment is essential. Human rights activists remind us that even minor smacks show a lack of respect for children — just as they do for adults. Spousal assault workers agree that parents who hit set an example of violence.

Repeal would give a clear message that spanking and hitting is, in the government’s own words, “a bad idea”, and no longer legal. This wouldn’t eliminate other defences to assault and restraint or mean that moderate spanking must be prosecuted. In consultation with child protection agencies and medical and community groups, provincial governments can draft guidelines diverting parents from the criminal justice system and avoiding inappropriate prosecutions. Instead, parents would be helped to learn alternative approaches to discipline. Confusion about the meaning of Section 43 would end.

It’s time our law moved forward and clearly repudiated this 19th century approach to correcting children. Other countries have done so. It’s now up to Parliament to do the same.

Corinne Robertshaw, BA (Hons), LL.B, is a retired lawyer and federal public servant. Her research papers, Outline of key legislative issues relating to child abuse (1980) and Child protection in Canada (1981), were published by Health and Welfare Canada. She founded the Repeal 43 Committee in 1994. For more information, visit (www.repeal43.org).

CON Questionable parenting, but not a crime
BY Nicholas Bala, BA, LL.B, LL.M

The Supreme Court of Canada recently held that section 43 of the CriminalCode, which allows parents and teachers to use "reasonable force" for the "correction" of a child is constitutionally valid. The Court didn’t endorse the use of corporal punishment, but rather ruled that Parliament's decision to allow parents to spank their offspring doesn’t violate the Charter of Rights.

The Justices held that it’s only legally permissible for a parent to use force that’s of a "trifling and transitory nature." Essentially, the Court has allowed parents to smack a child between the ages of two and 12 on the bottom or the hand. Anything else is a criminal assault.

Children aren’t second-class citizens

In formulating boundaries for acceptable corporal punishment, the Court was influenced by guidelines developed by professional groups like the Canadian Pediatric Society. Although some experts are unequivocal in concluding that corporal punishment is harmful, others disagree. There’s no doubt that children can be effectively disciplined without resorting to physical methods. It is also clear that excessive use of corporal punishment is harmful to kids. Some researchers, however, conclude that occasional use of limited force isn’t damaging to children, and for some kids may be an effective means of discipline, especially between the ages of two and six when reasoning may not be very successful.

The Court didn’t rule that children are "second class citizens", but instead recognized that they aren’t simply small adults. Kids view the world very differently from adults. Although older children resent and can be psychologically harmed by the application of force, younger children, who themselves are often quite physically aggressive, don’t view the application of force by a parent in the same way as an adult.

Even opponents of physical discipline accept that it may be necessary to enforce a time out, perhaps even locking a child in a room. Yet if an adult did this to another adult, it would understandably be regarded as a crime.

The Court didn’t say that the use of corporal punishment is good parenting. Instead it ruled that it shouldn’t criminalize parents who use corporal punishment. While the Canadian government is trying to encourage parents not to spank their kids, the Court emphasized that "the law is a blunt instrument" for the education of parents. Allowing the police to arrest and prosecute parents for acts that aren’t clearly dangerous to their children would intrude on family life and would be harmful to kids.

Parliament might in the future decide to follow the lead of some European countries and make even modest use of corporal punishment by parents a crime in Canada. Advocates for the repeal of s. 43 of the Criminal Code and a few politicians continue to advocate for this. But given the fact that many Canadian parents still occasionally use physical discipline, or at least threaten their kids with it, it seems unlikely that in the foreseeable future our politicians will want to tackle this highly controversial issue. Attitudes towards corporal punishment, however, have dramatically changed over the past few decades and are likely to continue to do so, and there may come a time when Parliament will be willing to address this issue.

Nicholas Bala, BA, LL.B, LL.M is Professor of Law at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He is a consultant to various Canadian governments on issues related to family and children’s law and is currently writing a book on child welfare law.

May 6/04 Letter to Canadian Jewish News Corporal Punishment
(Shortened with permission of author.)
We must recognize that spanking is hitting, and that hitting is assault. Violence is not a tool. It is always destructive, however, well-intentioned. Repealing Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which allows corporal punishment, does not mean many parents and teachers will be unfairly incriminated. (visit repeal43.org for information and answers.) We change the world by how we raise our children. We will never rid the world of violence if we don’t rid the home, and specifically childhood, of violence.

Israel, one of 11 countries to legislate against corporal punishment, is truly a light unto the nations on this issue. Section 43 can still be repealed by an act of Parliament if people speak up. Let’s follow Israel’s example, which is inspired by Judaism’s vibrant tradition of pursuing justice.
Suzanne Hersh, Toronto

May 4/04 Letter to Toronto Star Spanking children carries some risks
Re: Spanking effects, ethnicity linked May 3. It may be that spanking is viewed with greater acceptance in some societies than in others, but that does not make it the right thing to do. Research indicates that corporal punishment is not only ineffective in the long run, but also a risk factor for problems later. Children don't always recognize the harm that is being done to them, especially when that harm is viewed as normal behaviour.
Ruth Miller, Toronto

March 13/04 Letter to Windsor Star Spanking can turn to abuse Create a pause button in your mind to stop yourself from acting on impulse. Do not parent from an upset place.
We can understand how letter writer K. Priscak (Feb. 25) would feel if his little one were to throw a rock through a window. Frustration with a child who just won't seem to listen, fear that this child will turn into a hoodlum without forceful intervention, and embarrassment and anger that this child would act so outrageously in public are all strong impulses to act forcefully. The urge to parent from an upset place, to smack him on the butt, seems overwhelming.

But we ask our dads in our dads' course to learn one simple, but difficult parenting skill: Create a pause button in your mind to stop yourself from acting on impulse. Do not parent from an upset place. We urge them, take care of yourself first before you interact with your children. There is no dignity in hitting a person one-third your size. The pause is where you get to choose your response and where you find all your personal power.

A major reason parents hit their children is because they know they can get away with it. If they were insulted by a Hell's Angel biker, they would curb their impulse to lash out. If they were punished by their boss for hitting their child, by loss of pay or a demotion, they would soon learn better ways to parent.

There's a fine line between an upset parent and an abusive parent and all of us have the potential to become abusive. Spankings are not administered in calmness. A caring, well-intentioned parent can cross over that line in the heat of the moment. We know that one-in-four homes in Windsor and Essex County is a home of domestic violence. When we act on impulse in dealing with our little ones, the risk is too high to do harm. Too often a spanking turns into abuse. That's why the Supreme Court in Sec.43 needs to declare, without muddying the waters, that hitting is not an option. If it did so, parents would soon learn other thoughtful, positive ways to guide their children and gain their child's confidence and co-operation.
Win Harwood, Windsor

Feb 25/04 Letter to Prairie Messenger Education teacher criticizes Supreme Court ruling on spanking
I was both disheartened and disappointed at the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the "spanking law." Who determines "reasonable force"? We are, after all, products of our past and present environments. While one person is capable of determining "reasonable force," another may view the "reasonable" part as hitting and kicking. How are the two-year-olds to defend themselves against such attacks?

This seems to be reflective of our times; the movement away from liberal mainstream churches to the Pentecostal right-winged variety with their "the only way to heaven is accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour" theology. I come from a mainstream Catholic church where the emphasis is on a God of Love; forgiving, compassionate and tolerant, instead of the "you are a sinner" attitude of most of the Pentecostal churches I have attended. It is in the right-winged church where people speak of an "eye for an eye," which is the law of Hammurabi, not of God.

Frankly, this writer finds this very frightening. We seem to be moving to a type of McCarthyism of the '50s or the Salem witch trials, since some members of our societal order think that "hitting their children is their right." These are the same individuals that bash homosexuals and any religion that is not Christianity.

What message are we giving to our teachers? As an elementary school counsellor for many years, I witnessed the "good, the bad and the ugly." Most teachers are reasonable, caring people. But as in any profession, there are a few who are in teaching for the profit margin and control issues (powering instead of empowering). Are these few able to determine "reasonable force"? In my role as an instructor in education at a university, I try to develop empathy in my students. What do I tell my students now? Instead I have made a decision to have a discussion on the issue. At this point all I can do is pray to the loving, compassionate and tolerant God I know. "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do."
Karen Shubaly-Molnar, Winnipeg

Feb 16/04 Letter to Windsor Star Spanking decision small step in right direction
Yes, the decision allows the continued use of corporal punishment of children. This causes concern for our Council and community given that a recent national poll commissioned by the Toronto Health Unit showed that Canadians hold the majority opinion against the use of corporal punishment. We are sad because we know that children can be raised to be good citizens, that they can be raised more safely, and that they are likely to have better mental health as children and adults when they are not hit in the name of discipline. Yet, our sadness is tempered with the knowledge that the restrictions placed by the court on the use of corporal punishment are a small step in the right direction. The restrictions also illustrate that the Court and society are aware of the risks and the costs of the use of corporal punishment. We are confident that with the growing support of Canadians for non-violent parenting, the continued legal sanctioning of the hitting of any of our children, in any manner, will one day be seen as untenable.
Dr. Ralph Billingsley, Psychologist, Chair, Education Committee, Child Abuse Prevention Council, Windsor & Essex County

Feb 11/04 Letter to Windsor Star Court lets children down. The true issue of spanking is not children getting out of control but adults losing control.
It's a sad day for children, and for Canada. The Windsor Star, Feb. 3, ignores critical evidence in its editorial endorsement of Sec. 43, the spanking permit. The evidence, with graphic details, is its story-a-week of another small child abused by some caretaker. The Star claims that there are already laws to effectively deal with neglect and abuse. What laws we have are not strong or clear enough. The Star claims that the Supreme Court justices (unelected and unaccountable) have no mandate to interfere with parental autonomy or to have a say how children should be reared. Those very people, appointed to be guardians of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, should butt out.

The Supreme Court has true authoritative influence.When their doctor tells them to, because of its harmful effects, many patients will even quit smoking. When the Supreme Court tells them to, because of the harmful effects on themselves or their children, many parents will quit hitting. That's why it's critical that the justices issue clear decisions.

Too often a spanking turns into abuse.When we calm down, we usually think of a better way. How to get to the calm in the midst of the storm is one of the parenting skills we need to learn. Society is confronting outdated misperceptions of children. Some educators of parents still describe children as little devils, and still promote the view that children are devious and manipulative, that parents have to learn to train them, just like you would train a wild animal They advocate using fear (counting up to 3) or force (time outs, locking them in their rooms), and winning the battle of wills with a four year old.

In retaining the spanking law, the Supreme Court reinforces these negative attitudes towards children. How we view our children is crucial to how we treat them. Thinking guides our behaviour. If we think our kids are the enemy, we are going to declare war and stake out the battlefield. This ruling - clarifying how hard, with what, at what age, and where we can hit our children - simply confuses the issue. Hitting hurts and can too easily escalate. Sadly, the only thing the Supreme Court has done is define the weapons of war and the extent of the wounds that can be inflicted by the aggressor.

Section 43 is a risky permit to do harm. Sadly, in this decision to continue to permit the hitting of our kids, the justices have failed to challenge all Canadian parents to become more educated about their child's development, to examine their own attitudes and mind-set towards children, and to learn peaceful ways of getting their child's co-operation. They fail to prompt parents to learn how to manage their own feelings without taking them out on their children. They fail to insist that parents learn and teach their children how to resolve conflict without resorting to violence or intimidation, a lesson so badly needed in our world today. They have sidestepped the true issue here, which is not children getting out of control but adults losing control. We must err on the side of safety when dealing with our most vulnerable and precious resource.
Henry Harwood, Windsor

Feb 6/04 Letter to Windsor Star Abolish physical discipline directed at kids
It is interesting that of the several reports mentioned in the Jan. 30 guest column, Justice Still Eludes Abused Women and Children, not one recommendation can be found that prevents the instillation of violence in our society at its very roots: The abolition of all forms of physical discipline directed toward children, enshrined in Canadian law. Physical force, regardless of how little is used, communicates to our smallest citizens that these methods constitute acceptable means to resolve all issues, including future issues involving spouses and children.

The Supreme Court's revision of the legality of the spanking law is long overdue. If our lawmakers can pause for one moment amidst the paperwork and endless reports to rule in favour of the most defendless of citizens, fewer funds will be required in the future to treat abuse patterns which prevail in so many families.

There is no grey area in discerning between a little pat on the behind and obvious abuse. All cause a sense of humiliation and belittlement, which runs the high risk of carrying into the next generation. The time has come to allow our children and ourselves, in this great progressive country and the world over, to develop a positive sense of who we are. Until that day arrives, justice will continue to elude all humans who are abused.
Nadia Pryce, Kingsville, Ontario

Feb 4/04 Letter to Ottawa Citizen Spanking Cons
I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision to uphold Section 43 of the Criminal Code concerning the right of parents to spank their children. The negative outcomes that letter-writer Beverly J. Antle, president of the Ontario Association of Social Workers, discusses are precisely what I have learned in my university studies in developmental psychology.

Spanking is particularly harmful if the child has a bad temperament, as it may produce severe temper tantrums, lack of compliance and aggression towards parents, siblings, and peers. Parents who resort to spanking their child only display their inadequacies as a parent and their lack of knowledge of the child's psychosocial development.
Katie Riddell, Kanata, Ontario

Feb 4/04 Letter to Windsor Star Spanking law allows violence on vulnerable
I was greatly anticipating the decision to be handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the repeal of Section 43 of the Criminal Code - the antiquated and archaic spanking law. I was fairly confident because I feel our country is really coming into its own in the 21st century. I thought the time had come.

Unfortunately, it was not to be - yet. This section, which formerly included women and workers, by the way, was upheld. However, I have not given up hope. I believe in this country and I know that eventually we will join ranks with the enlightened countries of the world that have abolished this reasonable force ideology and embraced human rights for all. We must continue to move forward in this direction. Perhaps by the time my child is a parent, we will live in a country that no longer tolerates a section of the Criminal Code that allows Canadians to use violence against the most vulnerable.
Julie Fader,Windsor

Feb 4/04 Letter to Globe and Mail Don't hit dogs
Margaret Wente undercut her own argument that child rearing is like dog training when writing that she would hit the dog with a rolled-up newspaper as a method of discipline. Humane dog-training methods never involve striking the dog. A dog that is struck becomes hand-shy and fearful, not obedient, and probably more dangerous than it would otherwise have been. If a child is to be trained like a dog, then the child should most definitely not be struck, unless the object is to produce a fearful, aggressive child.
Noel Boulanger, New Westminster, BC

Feb 4/04 Letter to Ottawa Citizen Risky message
The Ontario Association of Social Workers is profoundly disappointed with the ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada. Failure to strike down Section 43 sends a deeply worrisome message about how we, as a society, view children's rights to equality and safety from physical harm.

By denying children the same protections afforded all other citizens, the Supreme Court is enabling a practice to continue that research has consistently shown to be an ineffective and potentially harmful method of managing children's behaviour.

Physical punishment has well-documented negative outcomes for children that include the risk of physical injury, poor psychological development and poor social adjustment. When children are exposed to physical punishment there is evidence that they will mirror these aggressive behaviours in relationships with peers and that this pattern of behaviour can extend into adulthood.

In October 2003, a United Nations Committee ruled that Canada was in violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children and should "prohibit all forms of violence against children, however light". Our association strongly urges the federal government to meet its obligation under this UN Convention and unequivocally prohibit all forms of physical punishment of children. Pressure must be placed on federal politicians to rewrite Section 43.
Beverley J. Antle, Toronto, President, Ontario Association of Social Workers

Feb 3/04 Letter to the Globe and Mail Spanking confusion
The Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of corporal punishment is a fine example of judges who, in trying to please all sides of a controversial issue, end up confusing the law rather than clarifying it.

The court has prohibited conduct that is "degrading, inhuman or harmful". But what do these elastic terms really mean? Many would argue that it is degrading, perhaps even harmful, to hit children repeatedly, or in public, or when not fully clothed. Is it now illegal to do so? And what on Earth is "inhuman" corporal punishment? (Top Court sets limits on spanking – Jan. 31)? Furthermore, the court has prohibited spankings motivated by rage or frustration, as they are most likely to result in inadvertent harm. Yet, it is precisely those parents who hit only as a last resort who are most likely to do so out of rage or frustration at their children's behaviour. So is last-resort corporal punishment now illegal? And, if so, what degree of state intrusion into family life is permissible to prevent it from occurring?
Tariq Alvi, Toronto

Feb 3/04 Letter to Toronto Star Made safe zone for child abusers
Re Top court upholds, but limits spanking (Jan 31). While the judges may be congratulating themselves for having established a safe zone for children, they have done so at a price. They have also established a safe zone for child abusers. Surely, that wasn't their intention, but it will be the effect. We'll see proof of this as new victims come to light – ones between the ages of 2 and12 who have been battered by hand elsewhere than on the head. Thanks to the generosity of the high court, Canadian child abusers can rest easy once they've learned the new rules. This is their lucky day. Meanwhile, wife-beaters and dog-kickers must be eating their hearts out with envy.
Jordan Riak, Executive Director Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education, Alamo, Calif.

Feb 2/04 Letter to Globe and Mail Part of our culture
Did anyone really expect the Supreme Court to ban spanking, as it is euphemistically called? Hitting children, like so many other forms of violence, is part of our culture (and many other cultures). Hitting them is an easy way to teach them that violence is okay, even when it is practiced against someone you presumably love (not to mention all the rest). Given the violence in our society, and in the world, it's clear the lesson has been well learned (Top Court Sets Limits on Spanking - Jan. 31). Besides, to think of a form of discipline that is non-violent would require imagination; hitting children merely requires a little strength.
Joan Forsey, Toronto

Feb 2/04 Letter to Globe and Mail Part of our culture
The Supreme Court ruling on spanking makes brilliant developmental sense. Why lower the boundary to two? To combat the terrible twos, of course. Why the upper boundary of thirteen? Well, by puberty, the kid will be big enough and strong enough to strike back. Brilliant.
Kenneth J. Zucker, PhD, Psychologist-in-Chief; Center for Addiction and Mental Health Toronto

Jan 30/04 Letter to Toronto Star Children have no rights
Re Top court upholds spanking law, Jan. 30. After hearing the recent ruling changes, or lack thereof to the century-old spanking law of Canada, I had to respond. I can think of no positive effect of spanking for children other than instilling the fear factor. Our court judges have only made some cosmetic changes. What it comes down to here is that children in our country have no rights. So it is up to adults to protect them.

Unfortunately, the bottom-feeders who think it's acceptable to beat their children will not read any of the fine print. They will only notice that it is still legal. And then they will spout the old "spare the rod and spoil the child" verse from the Bible. I believe the Bible, too, but I will never believe that God wanted us to physically hurt babies and children.

I am a baby-boomer who had old-fashioned parents but no one ever laid a hand on me while I was growing up. And, in spite of any lack of corporal punishment, I would say that I have grown up to be a fairly decent person.
Fran DeFoa, Woodbridge, ON

Jan 29/04 Letter to Toronto Star Courts buried under abuse cases
Re Spanking decision may hit home Jan 24. Faced daily with abused children, my view is that whether we have Section 43 of the Criminal Code or not, the vast majority of adults who hit children or worse, are not now and never will be charged. The courts are already overwhelmed with the victim/criminals of childhood physical discipline and violence. As John Goddard records in his excellent article, this same legal system has seriously lowered the bar and sanctioned significant trauma to children, an excess of "reasonable" force. Laying hands on children is crude, a quick try for a fix. It suggests an intellectual vacuum in a guardian as to discipline. Some advocates of this approach to child raising offer themselves as fine examples of their own parents' spanking philosophy. We have no way of determining the validity of their claims, do we?
Dr. Charles A. Ferguson, Director, Child Protection Centre at Children's Hospital Winnipeg

Jan 24/04 Letter to Toronto Sun A teen's views on spanking
I am the eldest of six children ranging in age from 6 to 15. None of us has been spanked in the past and I am fairly certain none of us will grow up to spank our children.

I know of many parents who believe spanking is disgusting, abusive and should be criminalized. It is nothing more than striking at another human being in an attempt to cause bodily harm. This is, by law, assault, is it not?

If a child is deemed by the parent to be out of line in some way, he or she, by law, has the right to strike the child "carefully" in an attempt to rectify the situation.

Using the same logic, does that give children the right to strike parents when they deem them to be out of line? I think not. To my knowledge, a child or teenager who administered the "punishment" of spanking, or just striking their parent(s) is arrested for assault. A double standard, perhaps?

As a country, we should be ashamed of the fact we still allow corporal punishment in our homes and in public. Not only does it cause physical and sometimes lasting harm to the child (depending on how severe the "discipline" is), but it also can have lasting emotional and mental effects.

And to those for corporal punishment who stick by the argument," Well we were spanked as children ... " I wish to give you a wake-up call. We are not living in the 1940s, '50s, '60s. We live in the 21st century. Times have changed.

Children are more than just able-bodied farm workers parents can order around and "discipline." They are far better than people give them credit for. If you need to strike your children to discipline them, then you do not deserve to have children as you have absolutely no clue how to be a parent.
Brad Penstone, Courtice, Ontario

Jan 25/04 Letter to Toronto Sun To spank or not to spank?
We disagree with the conclusion reached in your editorial, "Spanking shouldn't be a criminal act" (Jan. 18).

Criminal law must uphold fundamental principles, the most basic of which is the right to freedom from assault. Legal approval of hitting children for "correction" violates this basic principle. Whether the hitting is mild or severe, it undermines dignity and involves force as a means to an end - quite aside from the potential for serious harm in hitting defenceless and vulnerable children.

Because of this fundamental principle, even a mild slap of an adult is a criminal offence. Whether such a slap should be prosecuted is a policy decision for provincial attorneys general to deal with through guidelines. Whether prosecuted or not, the principle is nevertheless upheld by the law against assault.

Likewise, the principle that it's wrong to strike a child must be affirmed. This is why section 43 justifying correctional assaults on children must be ended. Guidelines can direct that prosecutions be undertaken only as a last resort. This minimizes the risk of unwarranted or malicious prosecutions. As stated by the Supreme Court in the recent marijuana decision, this risk is part of the social and individual costs of having a criminal justice system. In comparison with the principle at stake, this is a risk we must take to uphold basic principles and protect our children.
Corinne Robertshaw, Repeal 43 Committee, Toronto

2003

Dec 24/03 Letter to Windsor Star Abuse of Children causes mental health problems
Re: The Article, Mental Health for Children – Announced $50 million Will Not Solve Problems. When are we going to stop side-stepping around the cause of mental illness? To put it quite si