February 4, 2004  
Volume 97, Issue 69  

Front Page >> Editorial > Story


> News
> Editorial & Opinions
> Arts & Entertainment
> Campus Life
> Sports


> Archives
> Search Archive:
> Browse By Date:

More Stuff

> Photo Gallery
> Comics
> Contests
> Links

Talk to Us

> About Us
> Submit Letter
> Volunteers
> Advertising
> Gazette Alumni Society


Supreme Court needs a spanking

From the Far Lane
Emmett Macfarlane


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 democratic country.

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 1982.

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 gods.

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.



Editorial Links

© 2003 The Gazette  
BluThng Productions