needs a spanking
From the Far Lane
Last Friday’s decree by the Supreme
Court of Canada concerning spanking was abhorrent, not because
of the ruling itself, but because the court actually believes
it has the right to dictate parenting, among all the other
issues on which it sees fit to impose its will upon our so-called
The spanking ruling itself, for the most part, took into account
something the Supreme Court does not always use: common sense.
The court ruled that teachers could not use corporal punishment
unless they had no other option, such as for breaking up a
fight. As for parents, the court decreed so long as such force
was “reasonable” (the judiciary’s favourite
word), then spanking was OK.
But the disgusting part is that they chose to take the case
under consideration in the first place.
As much as all the bleeding-heart professors or other experts
decry the use of spanking, the fact of the matter is there
are a lot of kids who could use a good smack every once in
a while. (Have you been to a mall lately? There are a lot of
parents that need a smack too).
There is a reason children are not eligible to vote, drive
or enter into legal contracts: they lack the capacity for the
same level of understanding as adults. Today’s society,
with its Oprahs, Dr. Phils and namby-pamby “experts,” seems
to think children should be negotiated with instead of parented.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court thinks its role is as the parent,
and society as the child.
Consisting of nine unelected senior citizens, the Court has
slowly eroded the level of democracy in Canada, particularly
since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was entrenched in
Rather than relying on elected representatives, or lawmakers,
to set the law of the land in accordance to the people’s
wishes, judges saw the Charter as a chance to make themselves
Yes, interpreting the law is well within their purview, but
most Supreme Court rulings go beyond examining law these days.
In fact, too often the court rewrites existing law or just
makes it up on the fly if the nine demigods don’t like
what elected officials have put in place.
In recent years, the court has ruled that prisoners have the
right to vote, but refused to hear an appeal against Quebec’s
fascist sign law, which prevents privately-owned businesses
from having English-only signs.
Rarely do such controversial decisions truly have anything
to do with interpreting the law, but rather are based on the
personal opinions of robed, out-of-touch, high and mighty prognosticators,
all of whom are appointed by the prime minister. Unelected,
unaccountable and arrogant, all indications are that the Supreme
Court is only going to get worse.