Canada: A Pathfinder in Search of a Path

In 1973, British Columbia (B.C.) became the first province in Canada to forbid corporal punishment in public schools (B.C. School Act), followed by the majority of the other provinces. Alberta and Manitoba however, still have no provincially enacted legal prohibition, although many school boards have updated their policies to state that corporal punishment should be prohibited. The spotlight on efforts to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code may have dimmed over time on the national stage, but the recent Canadian Truth and Reconciliation report has ignited this issue once again. My article explores the existing laws with a comparative approach (Reimann & Zimmermann, 2008; Orucu & Nelken, 2007), in terms of where Canada stands in relation to other nations’ legislative standards and practices. It also addresses the severe behavioural and psychological implications on impacted children. As a developed nation, Canada needs to reconsider its current state of "progress" by inspecting and reviewing existing discourses and legislatives to ensure successful prevention of corporal punishment in schools. This paper intends not only to contribute to the advancement of Canadian legislative standards, but also to practices in local and international education.

2011

Permission is hereby granted to the University of Alberta Libraries to reproduce single copies of this thesis and to lend or sell such copies for private, scholarly or scientific research purposes only. Where the thesis is converted to, or otherwise made available in digital form, the University of Alberta will advise potential users of the thesis of these terms.

2013

The Children’s Institute (CI) was established in 2001 as a multi-disciplinary policy research unit located in the Faculty of Health Sciences of the University of Cape Town built on the foundation of its predecessor the Child Health Policy Institute (CHPI). The founding goal of the CI was to “promote effective development of policies and interventions” that address the major needs of children and to realise rights for all children in South Africa. The CI was established with the specific intention to conduct child focused policy research, teaching and advocacy aimed at improving the situation of children and adolescents. Of major concern to the Children's Institute is the high level of violence experienced by children in South Africa. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CROC) has called on “all States parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment...as a key strategy for reducing and preventing all forms of violence in societies”. T...

The International Journal of Children s Rights

Ending the physical punishment of children remains an enormous challenge. In societies which tolerate even limited physical punishment as discipline or control, it is a response to children that adults may unthinkingly adopt simply because they can. This paper primarily focuses on the language, traditions and law prevailing in English-speaking, common law countries -Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom -that have ratified the CRC but have not yet fully outlawed physical punishment. New Zealand, the first English-speaking country to ban physical punishment, and the United States which has neither ratified the CRC nor fully outlawed physical punishment, are also discussed. Separately, language, traditional attitudes and practices, and laws impacting children's lives are considered, with a view to envisioning a status quo where adults and children are accorded equal respect as human beings and any degree of physical violence towards children is regarded as an aberration.

Alternative Law Journal, 2013

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has criticised Australia (and many other countries) in State Reports released in 1997, 2005 and, most recently, 2011, for not introducing a ban on corporal punishment by parents of their children in line with Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ('CROC'). 1 In light of this criticism, and the clear recommendation to ban parental corporal punishment, it is surprising that no government in Australia has yet taken the step towards such a ban. 2 In the debate on this issue in Australia, 3 the main argument against a ban on corporal punishment seems to be that it would be a violation of the right to private family life, and to parents' right to choose how to raise their children. Connected to this argument is a belief that the family structure would collapse if parents were no longer able to physically chastise their children. Furthermore, it is argued that such a ban would result in parents use of 'mild' forms of physical discipline being viewed wrongfully as criminals, which in turn would have negative effects on the children. Another argument put forward is that 'mild' forms of physical punishment do not harm children and that smacking children can be less harmful than verbal reprimands. 9 The ban in the Parental Code, which is a civil law, is an 'educational' provision and does not in itself carry sanctions. Penalties for acts of violence against children are instead specified and provided in the assault section in the Penal Code. 10 This section, which is not specific to criminal acts against children, states that a person is criminally liable for assault if '... inflicting bodily injury, illness or pain upon another or renders him or her powerless or in a similar helpless state...'. The legal criteria of the crime of assault include that, to be punishable, any injury, illness or pain must be more than minor and must not be 'too mild or brief in duration.' 11 Consequently, the ban in the Parental Code-with its educational rather than punitive aim that includes 'milder' forms of physical punishment without evidence of a more durable injury or pain-is wider in its scope than the assault section in the Penal Code. 12 Thus, while all forms of physical punishment are 'proactively' banned in the Parental Code, not all are criminalised in the Penal Code. Effects and results of the ban At about the same time as the ban was introduced, an extensive publicity campaign was launched, which resulted in the ban being quickly and widely known. Debates and information meetings were organised by different organisations and the issue was discussed in the media. 13 Furthermore, information was printed on milk cartons to encourage awareness and discussions within families 'around the kitchen table'. 14 Two years after the ban was introduced, more than 90 per cent of Swedish parents were

International Review of Law and Jurisprudence (IRLJ), 2020

The effort of international organisations to prohibit the use of corporal punishment on children has not been without controversies. This study analyses the issues surrounding the prohibition of corporal punishment on minors. One of such issues relates to the 'reasonable chastisement'defence, an old legal justification for applying corporal punishment on a child. Such defence is no longer tenable under the purview of international law. In addition, the lawful use of force for the purpose of correcting a child under the Nigerian Criminal Code, Penal Code and Sharia code respectively is a violation of international human rights law. Researches by international experts have indicated that physical punishment involves the use of corporal punishment. Furthermore, surveys by the United Nations have further proven corporal punishment as the most common form of violence against children. Hence, the prohibition of corporal punishment under international law aims to protect and promote respect for the human dignity of a child as enshrined under the Convention on the Rights of a child. Corporal punishment as a means of correction no longer holds ground under International human rights Law. Therefore legal reforms should include a creative way of correction that will not violate a child's human dignity.

Health Tomorrow: Interdisciplinarity and Internationality, 2015

Corporal punishment of children, although banned in 32 countries, is still legal in Canada. Countries which have banned corporal punishment have done so based on their recognition of children as people who have a right to be free from harm. For over two decades, research has outlined the mental and physical health risks of exposing children to corporal punishment. Furthermore, corporal punishment has been found to be ineffective in the long-term, and more effective, safer, and healthier forms of discipline have been presented through research and encouraged by medical doctors and psychologists. This article summarizes these findings and highlights the importance of disseminating education on corporal punishment as Sweden effectively accomplished. It is concluded that Canadian communities must support parents in turning away from corporal punishment and promote the practice of safe and healthy disciplinary alternatives.

Corporal Punishment of Children

This chapter comprises a commentary on a rewritten judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (Attorney General) 2004 SCC 4. That decision concerned the constitutionality of the 'reasonable punishment' defence to the physical punishment of children. After outlining the original judgment, I critique the rewritten judgment, and ask whether reframing the legal issue in terms of children's rights might be more likely to invert the premise of the s43 debate than a human rights perspective. It will be published in Helen Stalford, Kathryn Hollingsworth, Stephen Gilmore, eds, Children's Rights Judgments (Hart, 2017)