CLASH ON SPANKING

NP Story july 16 2001
Alymer, Ont. clash fans flames of debate over Canada's age-old 'spanking law'
JAMES MCCARTEN
Canadian Press

TORONTO (CP) - Their young faces have been obscured for their protection, but through the blur, the looks of anguish are unmistakable.

In photo after searing photo, grim-faced police and child-welfare workers are carrying the seven school-aged children from their family home, obviously against their will.

Fears that the children were being abused in the name of discipline prompted officials to forcibly remove them from their home in the southwestern Ontario town of Aylmer, Ont. last week.

And when they did, a God-fearing fundamentalist Christian family was thrust headlong into the latest instalment of an ever-present debate in Canada about the dangers of corporal punishment.

"Society as a whole used to believe in and practise spanking as one form of correction for children; why is it a crime now?" wondered Susan Mutch, an ordained minister of the Church of God in British Columbia.

Mutch's Web site, www.childrentaken.com, is documenting the story - photos and all - in an effort to drum up international support for the family, devout followers of Mutch's church.

An occasional spanking, "administered not in anger, but in loving care," is not abuse, Mutch wrote in a recent e-mail.

"These children, who are very happy and contented, have been brought up in a very loving environment," she said.

"How grievous that they have been torn from it."

A court ruled last week that the children must remain in the custody of the Children's Aid Society for now, but with supervised visits from their parents. The family is due back in court July 26.

At the heart of Canada's corporal punishment debate is Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which permits the use of "force by way of correction" as long as it is "reasonable under the circumstances."

And while it isn't enshrined in law, courts have long frowned on the use of instruments such as straps, belts or paddles, said David Brown, a lawyer for the Coalition for Family Autonomy.

The section's lack of specifics are necessary to protect the rights of parents to decide on their own how best to raise their children, Brown said.

"The language of the section strikes a reasonable balance between the interests and rights of parents to discipline their children on the one hand, and the need for society to ensure that children are not subjected to abuse," he said.

"When one looks at how the section has been interpreted by the courts over the years, it has resulted in a reasonable, balanced approach to the issue."

The section survived a constitutional challenge last year, but not before Superior Court Justice David McCombs issued a ruling that hinted at a need for reform.

"The evidence shows that public attitudes toward corporal punishment of children are changing," McCombs said in his written decision.

"There is a growing body of evidence that even mild forms of corporal punishment do no good and may cause harm."

Opponents of the section are taking their fight to the Ontario Court of Appeal in September.

For Corinne Robertshaw, the founder of the Toronto-based Repeal 43 Committee, the section - unchanged since it was introduced into the Criminal Code some 109 years ago in 1892 - is little more than an age-old excuse to abuse one's children.

"You read Dickens, you read Samuel Johnson, the great man of letters of the 18th century, and they just took it for granted that in order to teach children, you've got to hit them; you've got to beat them," she said.

"Well, it's the 21st century now."

Toronto child psychologist Dr. Otto Weininger said he's afraid child-welfare workers may have done more harm than good when they wrestled the children from their home last week.

"It's a terrible situation," Weininger said. "If you remove the child from the home, what you make the child feel is, 'I must have been terrible, I must have been bad.' And so you hear many kids say, 'Don't take me away, I'll be good, I'll be good."'

Stories that fuel debate about spanking resonate with people, he added, because they pose a threat to one of the most long-standing tenets of child-rearing: the undeniable authority of the parent.

"Most parents really feel that they are in control, that they are the ones who have to discipline and 'teach' their children," Weininger said.

"It's almost as though the law parents the parent and the parent feels almost impotent about dealing with their own children."

The ongoing debate about corporal punishment stirs deep feelings, Brown agreed.

"There are pretty diametrically opposed views in Canadian society now, probably of almost equal measure, as to whether one should or should not spank a kid," he said.

"That's been a debate ongoing for the better part of 20 or 25 years, and whenever you get a high-profile case like this, it just rekindles the debate that's already there."

The two sides in the debate - organized religion and society's interest in the safety of its children - will likely forever be at odds, Weininger added.

"We have two forces at work," he said, "and they just ain't going to match."