SUPREME COURTT

TODAY'S FAMILY NEWS for October 18-20, 2002
SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON SPANKING

Focus on the Family Canada president Dr. Darrel Reid is disappointed that the Supreme Court has decided to have the final say on whether parents should have the legal right to spank their children. "This decision ... will be an incredible waste of time and money," Reid said in a news release[*1]. "Two lower courts have already ruled in the clearest possible terms that parents have a right to discipline their children in a loving way without the fear of being branded as criminals."

Reid also said that Focus will apply for intervenor status in the case as part of the Coalition for Family Autonomy.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court announced that it had agreed to hear an appeal filed by the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law[*2] (CFCYL). It wants to overturn a unanimous decision[*3] of the Ontario Court of Appeal upholding Section 43 of the Criminal Code[*4]. In place since 1892, Section 43 protects parents and teachers who administer a spanking to correct a child's inappropriate behaviour from facing possible assault charges.

The CFCYL - which has received funds from the taxpayer-funded Court Challenges Program[*5] to pursue its cause - claims that all forms of corporal discipline are in violation of the Charter. In a statement reported in the Globe and Mail, an umbrella group of anti-spanking activists called the Coalition to Repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada said it "has worked to end this dangerous and unjust defence to assaults on children and welcomes the Supreme Court decision to hear this appeal."

Reid, however, remained hopeful that ultimately the law will be upheld. "We have judicial precedence, numerous scientific studies, and Canadian public opinion all on our side," he said. A Focus on the Family Canada survey[*6] earlier this year found that 72% of parents wanted to continue to have the right to use spanking as a disciplinary tool.

Anti-spanking activists have twice lost in the courts. In July 2000, Ontario Superior Court Justice David McCombs upheld the law, saying parents and teachers needed some leeway in carrying out their responsibilities to children. Eighteen months later, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the CFCYL had failed completely to show that Section 43 "violates any principle of fundamental justice." "The section permits limited physical punishment of the child by a limited class of people without the punishment being a criminal assault," stated Justice Stephen Thomas Goudge, who wrote the decision. "[It] carefully defines the limits that must be observed if those actions are to escape criminal sanction."