He said
The Canadian Medical Association Journal recently released a scathing editorial, calling for some reform to the Criminal Code. They were demanding the removal of a section called the correction of child by force, which does sound like a pretty robotic way of describing discipline.
The section justifies parents, anyone standing in place of a parent and schoolteachers, to use force by way of correction toward a pupil or child. I'm not a parent or a schoolteacher, and there has never been a time where I was standing in as a parent. There is a particular point however, that needs to be looked at. Should children be protected by law from any bodily harm?
With this section there is a double standard based on some form of age. There doesn't appear to be much guidance on what a child is. Whether a person is a child until 10, or 14, or 18 isn't spelled out in the section. At what age people can no longer be corrected through force is a little unclear.
Not all superiors have the right to correct their inferiors by force. My boss certainly isn't permitted to strike me if I need to be corrected, so there is a clear double standard in our legal system as to whom is protected from what.
There is certainly a difference to note between discipline, teaching the value of dealing with repercussions, and physical abuse. Children are still protected from abuse.
Growing up, my siblings and I were corrected by force, some more than others. Recently however, my sister and I were talking with my mom about spanking. She asked if we thought we had a bad childhood, to which we told her growing up was just fine, despite the odd open-palmed crack.
She said she didn't like doing it, but it was often done out of frustration. I guess that's reasonable considering she had five kids 10 and under at one time.
Even so, this particular law allowing protection of persons in authority is something that should probably be abandoned. It's time to start giving children the same rights and freedoms we all expect.
She said
I'm about as non-violent as a person can be. I can't say I've ever been in a physical confrontation in my life. I don't like when people hit each other, and you'd never catch me watching fighting on TV or in person.
But I don't have a problem with the idea of spanking children.
As a kid, I was spanked when I misbehaved and caused trouble. Not to say I was beaten or attacked with a belt or anything, my parents aren't terrifying monsters. But I was slapped a little bit when I was really out of line. I also once had to eat soap, but that's a whole different story.
I have to say, I'm pretty normal. And so are my sisters, who were treated pretty similarly growing up. Plus, there's my parents' generation which, as a generation, was spanked a fair bit more.
I recognize that I'm not a parent and I'm not an expert on child development. I also know there are plenty of studies out there that suggest spanking is harmful to the development of a child. And while I agree there's probably truth to these studies, I'm skeptical when I see the kinds of kids being produced by this parenting model. I'm generalizing, but I've seen a lot of bratty, annoying kids get away with a lot of misbehaving because they know their parents aren't going to hit them, or possibly even punish them.
Of course, there are a lot of kids who are spanked that are also bratty and annoying, despite the threat of physical punishment.
Here's my thinking: maybe all kids are different, and they all react differently to being punished/not being punished? How can anyone say what's the best way to discipline children? Shouldn't a parent make that choice, assuming they're educated on the risks of spanking vs. not spanking, since they know their children the best? Criminalizing spanking would be wrong.
