To view the article, click here!
(2009). To Spank or Not to Spank? CBC News. Retrieved November 10, 2011 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/07/31/f-spanking-discipline-debate.html.
Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4, [2004] 1 SCR 76
R. v. V., 2005 – Bois, P. Personal Communication. November 13, 2011.
Summary: “To Spank or Not to Spank?”
Corporal punishment in classrooms has been subjected to debate for more than a century; should physical force be an option for disciplining children? According to Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, parents, teachers and anyone else acting in place of parent has the right to use reasonable force to discipline children. In 2004, a legal case arrived in the Supreme Court of Canada in which the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law (hereafter referred to as ‘the Foundation’) attempted to have section 43 removed from the Criminal Code, as they believed the law decriminalized child abuse and offended children’s rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Chief Justice McLachlin upheld section 43, stating that children’s rights are not infringed upon and corporal punishment may be used as long as it “’is part of a genuine effort to educate the child, poses no reasonable risk of harm that is more than transitory and trifling, and is reasonable under the circumstances’” (qtd. in CBC News). McLachlin did rule, however, that corporal punishment was not to be used on children younger than two years of age, as they do not have the capacity to understand this type of discipline, and it is also not appropriate for disciplining adolescents, as it can cause aggressive/antisocial behavioural problems. Still, Canada remains divided on this issue.
People who argue against section 43 believe that using force against a child is unacceptable because it “encourages violence [and] is an affront to human dignity” (CBC News). This side of the debate also notes that, despite the ruling of the 2004 case, using force against a child opposes children’s rights and their best interests. In the 2004 case, the Foundation argued that section 43 of the Criminal Code violates sections 7; 12; and 15 of the Charter, and that the law itself is too vague. These people note that defining ‘reasonable’ is extremely difficult, as different school boards, principals and teachers may have different ideas about what is reasonable.
Those who are for corporal punishment in schools say that there is no scientific proof that reasonable discipline can harm a child. While teachers are not allowed to physically strike a student, teachers can intervene and break up a fight or remove a disruptive child from the classroom by physically guiding him out of the room by his arm. People who are pro-force vouch for the benefits of this type of discipline because teachers’ ultimate goal is a safe and positive school environment; if children are being violent or are disrupting others’ learning, teachers should, in pro-force opinion, be allowed to eliminate these threats.
Since the 2004 case, Canadian courts and the Senate alike have heard from many different people and organizations who represent both sides of the debate. Shortly after the 2004 case, Celine Hervieux-Payette, the Liberal Senator at the time, presented a bill to her colleagues which would strike down section 43 from the Criminal Code. Unfortunately for Hervieux-Payette, the bill never made it to the House of Commons due to the dissolving of parliament for an election.
Critical Perspectives
Section 43 of the Criminal Code is a very controversial topic but I do believe there are some benefits to reasonable force as a method of discipline in the classroom. Because the top priority of all schools is to provide a safe and positive school environment, teachers must be prepared to discipline students or to eliminate a threat in drastic situations. Sometimes, children are extremely angry and cannot make rational choices. If children engage in violent fights, teachers can use section 43 to their advantage by physically intervening. The teacher cannot be criminally charged for assault because he/she acted reasonably, considering the violent circumstances, and acted to preserve children's safety. Also, if a student is openly disrespectful to a teacher and/or his/her classmates, or if the student becomes a disruption for other children’s learning, the teacher can exercise section 43 by leading the disruptive child by the arm to the principal’s office. This way, the teacher can maintain a positive classroom environment for the other students and can also place the disruptive child in the principal’s care. Here, the child will receive corrective discipline aimed at teaching him/her behavioural expectations. Parents can also benefit from Section 43 because they have the security of knowing their children will be kept safe, and inappropriate behaviour will be dealt with.
Section 43 may also have some harmful effects. For example, the word ‘reasonable’ is somewhat vague; who decides what constitutes ‘reasonable’ discipline? Teachers’ definitions of ‘reasonable’ may vary by their current state of mind. For example, in the 2005 case R. v. V., a teacher ('V.') with 30 years of teaching service and an unblemished record tied a 7 year old student to his chair with a skipping rope because he continually left his seat and distracted other students. V. was understandably frustrated and angry with this student, so perhaps she believed that tying this child to his chair was a ‘reasonable’ form of discipline. After she was notified of these allegations, V. turned herself in to Toronto Police and later pled guilty; this suggests that she likely realized the error of her behaviour after calming down. Section 43 could also be harmful if teachers use it as a defense in court for their violent behaviour towards children. Teachers who use unreasonable force but rely on section 43 to justify their actions in court demonstrate to fellow teachers that it is acceptable to push the boundaries of ‘reasonable force’.
Bringing Balance
Teachers must be careful to only use force when classroom safety becomes endangered. Even then, teachers must always react to these classroom problems with a calm, clear head to avoid irrational actions. Teachers need to show confidence and control in the classroom so that their ability to discipline is not undermined, and they also need to deal with problems right away before they escalate. Teachers should also make clear the expected behaviours of their students and post a code of conduct in class. Teachers must also respect their own code of conduct because teachers are role models for students. In order to avoid resorting to physical forms of discipline school boards should educate teachers on progressive discipline, beginning with a verbal warning. If the problem continues, the student may write an apology note. Next, the teacher could inform the child’s parents. Following this, the teacher could send the child for a time-out at the back of the class (depending on the age of the child). Only when the teacher runs out of options should he/she resort to physically removing the child from the classroom.