By today鈥檚 standards, most people even just two generations ago would have parents with criminal records.
And it wasn鈥檛 just parents who could physically abuse you with impunity. When I started elementary school in Regina, corporal punishment was still available to educators.
The 鈥渟trap鈥� sat on the teacher鈥檚 desk and I saw more than one of my classmates (may or may not have been one of them) get rapped on the knuckles with a yardstick (remember yardsticks)?
One of my most vivid memories of childhood is being pulled, by the ear, to the principle鈥檚 office by a nun.
To be fair, they probably didn鈥檛 know any better. 鈥淪pare the rod, spoil the child.鈥� Remember that old chestnut.
Times have changed though. Boy, have they. If you don鈥檛 believe me, following is a cautionary tale from Yorkton Provincial Court.
On Monday, a 37-year-old woman pleaded guilty to four counts of assault with a weapon and one count of common assault.
The victims? Her five children. The weapon(s)? The old proverbial wooden spoon. That is to say, a belt, a broomstick, whatever was at hand, including her hand, which accounts for the one count of common assault.
Last December the woman鈥檚 six-year-old daughter told someone associated with the Big Brothers Big Sisters organization she was uncomfortable going home.
A police investigation determined that corporal punishment was a regular feature of the home environment. Child Protection Services seized the children and the mother was charged under the Criminal Code and put into counseling.
In a presentence report, probation services noted she said it was 鈥渙ld school discipline.鈥�
I do not know this woman鈥檚 background, but I suspect there is a chance鈥攕omewhere between almost certainly and without a doubt鈥攕he was also subjected to the same growing up.
Of course, under the law, that is no excuse. The Crown called it 鈥渦nacceptable.鈥� The judge did too.
She was given a conditional sentence of 12 months, including a curfew for the first six and a slate of other conditions including no contact with her children except under supervision.
Canadian Society has come a long way, but it鈥檚 not easy to break the cycle of violence.
I still hear people of my age, and even quite a bit younger, saying things like, 鈥淚 never would have done what these kids today are doing because I would have got a slap upside the head.鈥�
And it is a very common thread in immigrant humour. Anybody who is a fan of standup comedy is probably familiar with the Indian-Canadian comic Russell Peters鈥� bit about threatening to call Children鈥檚 Aid on his dad, who responds: 鈥淚 might get into a little bit of trouble, but I know it鈥檚 going to take them 23 minutes to get here and in that time, somebody gonna get a-hurt real bad.鈥�
Arthur Simeon, another great immigrant comic from Ghana tells it this way: 鈥淢y parents had six kids, but they made it clear they were okay with four. That鈥檚 why I鈥檓 so well-behaved.鈥�
It鈥檚 funny stuff, but it鈥檚 no laughing matter.
It is still technically legal to spank your child in Canada, though.
Section 43 of the Criminal Code (鈥渢he spanking law鈥�) reads:
鈥淓very 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.鈥�
Of course, anything that ambiguous is bound to be challenged, and it was, in 2004. The Supreme Court upheld the section with clarification, which is aptly summarized in the Wikipedia article 鈥淐orporal Punishment in the Home.鈥�
鈥淭he majority [6-3] held that the person administering the discipline must be a parent or legal guardian, or in some cases, a school teacher (i.e. non-parental relatives such as grandparents, aunts, or uncles, as well as babysitters and other caretakers, are banned from spanking); that the force must be used 鈥渂y way of correction鈥� (sober, reasoned uses of force that address the actual behaviour of the child and are designed to restrain, control or express some symbolic disapproval of his or her behaviour); that the child must be capable of benefiting from the correction (i.e. not under the age of 2 or over 12); and that the use of force must be 鈥渞easonable under the circumstances鈥�, meaning that it results neither in harm nor in the prospect of bodily harm.
鈥淧unishment involving slaps or blows to the head is harmful, the Court held. Use of any implement other than a bare hand is illegal and hitting a child in anger or in retaliation for something a child did is not considered reasonable and is against the law. The Court defined 鈥渞easonable鈥� as force that would have a 鈥渢ransitory and trifling鈥� impact on the child. For example, spanking or slapping a child so hard that it leaves a mark that lasts for several hours would not be considered 鈥渢ransitory and trifling.鈥�
That is a very high standard, as it should be.
