Pure Parents

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> No what the thread referenced is that they are trying to repeal the > law which *allows* all caregivers of children to use *reasonable* > force and to the law that apparently included spanking.  So by > repealing it that would have the effect of banning spanking and also > any other physical restraint used on a child. >This is bunk.  Repealing a law allowing reasonable >physical force to control a child doesn’t have the legal >effect of banning spanking.  That would have to be >codified itself.  There is no logic to the proposition >that a lack of a specific law allowing an action >(reasonable force upon a child) renders the action itself >illegal.

Are you in Canada?  How do you know that?  The original thread was posted by a Canadian about this and the section of law being repealed was quoted by another Canadian. The debate involved the fact that this was seen as banning spanking because it banned using physical force.  Do you not believe that spanking is considered physical force in Canada? Dorothy

Response:

>> No what the thread referenced is that they are trying to repeal the > law which *allows* all caregivers of children to use *reasonable* > force and to the law that apparently included spanking.  So by > repealing it that would have the effect of banning spanking and also > any other physical restraint used on a child. >But would repealing the law that allows spanking really ban *any* use of >physical restraint?

I don’t know. > After all, if the current law (which is, in affect, a >’children’s exemption’ from adult assault laws) is repealed, wouldn’t general >assault laws still apply?

Again, I don’t know.  This is Canadian Law, not the US Law, so I cannot say what the constraints are there. > And aren’t you allowed to use physical restraint on >adults in certain circumstances, for instance if the person is a danger to >themselves or others, or if the adult is considered to have diminished >capacity?

In the US yes, I don’t know about Canada’s laws on this. >Besides, this *isn’t* exactly uncharted territory, folks. Several European >countries no longer allow corporal punishment of children, and from all >indications mass chaos has been noticeably absent.

Sweden actually is one of those.  The Swedish law though provided no penalty.  Not sure what this one does.  And some people recently posted that the rate of child abuse in Sweden has increased.  Again I don’t know whether that is true or not, but if it is then that would also give me reason for cautioning against criminalizing parents.  It is likely that what might happen is to drive the abuse underground where we cannot get at it. >Whether legal prohibition is the best way to discourage spanking is still open >to question, but predictions of kids running wild and blood in the streets as a >result seems pretty absurd, IMO.

Laura you know better than that. *I* never predicted that kids would run wild if this law passed. Dorothy

Response:

>Aside from your objection what is being stricken is the clause that says you >may use reasonable force.  If that is stricken, then you may never use any >force at all. >The law rosee quoted is being *repealed* not added. >Dorothy

I guess I’m alittle confused then. I thought this whole thread was about the law in Canada that concerned `spanking` period. I thought that they wanted to pass such a law against spanking. While I’ve never felt the need to spank, and think that there is almost always a better way, I’d be quite upset if the US were to try and pass such a law. What the heck ARE we talking about then? A law against spanking, period….or against reasonable force in an already existing law? Either way, I’d no doubt be against such a law. The terms of any such thing are usually just too broad and too easily abused. Josie

Response:

>Personally, I think that the criminal justice system has >better things to do than prosecuting spankers, such as….I >don’t know…..putting away child molesters and murderers? >Just IMHO. >rosee

Good point. I heartily agree. I have said so before in here and got nowhere. Josie

Response:

Well, then…..I guess I’d have to stand against that…..if it were my more because of what I think such a law/whatever would `lead` to. Which would be chaos…..IMHO. And injustice. That and the fact that I think the government intrudes too much already in our personal lives. We ARE talking about Canada here, right? I didn’t miss something, did I? JMO Josie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >No what the thread referenced is that they are trying to repeal the >law which *allows* all caregivers of children to use *reasonable* >force and to the law that apparently included spanking.  So by >repealing it that would have the effect of banning spanking and also >any other physical restraint used on a child. >Dorothy >>Aside from your objection what is being stricken is the clause that says >you >>may use reasonable force.  If that is stricken, then you may never use any >>force at all. >>The law rosee quoted is being *repealed* not added. >>Dorothy >I guess I’m alittle confused then. I thought this whole thread was about >the >law in Canada that concerned `spanking` period. I thought that they wanted >to >pass such a law against spanking. While I’ve never felt the need to spank, >and >think that there is almost always a better way, I’d be quite upset if the >US >were to try and pass such a law. What the heck ARE we talking about then? A >law >against spanking, period….or against reasonable force in an already >existing >law? Either way, I’d no doubt be against such a law. The terms of any such >thing are usually just too broad and too easily abused. >Josie >Path: >lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc04.blue.aol.com!newsrouter.icnc.com!euro

pa.netcrusader.net!192.148.253.68!netnews.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!news.c orecomm.net!not-for-mail – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Newsgroups: alt.parenting.solutions >Lines: 48 >X-

Response:

> No what the thread referenced is that they are trying to repeal the > law which *allows* all caregivers of children to use *reasonable* > force and to the law that apparently included spanking.  So by > repealing it that would have the effect of banning spanking and also > any other physical restraint used on a child.

But would repealing the law that allows spanking really ban *any* use of physical restraint? After all, if the current law (which is, in affect, a ‘children’s exemption’ from adult assault laws) is repealed, wouldn’t general assault laws still apply?  And aren’t you allowed to use physical restraint on adults in certain circumstances, for instance if the person is a danger to themselves or others, or if the adult is considered to have diminished capacity? Besides, this *isn’t* exactly uncharted territory, folks. Several European countries no longer allow corporal punishment of children, and from all indications mass chaos has been noticeably absent. Whether legal prohibition is the best way to discourage spanking is still open to question, but predictions of kids running wild and blood in the streets as a result seems pretty absurd, IMO. Laura Uerling – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Aside from your objection what is being stricken is the clause that says > you >>may use reasonable force.  If that is stricken, then you may never use any >>force at all. >>The law rosee quoted is being *repealed* not added. >>Dorothy >I guess I’m alittle confused then. I thought this whole thread was about > the >law in Canada that concerned `spanking` period. I thought that they wanted > to >pass such a law against spanking. While I’ve never felt the need to spank, > and >think that there is almost always a better way, I’d be quite upset if the > US >were to try and pass such a law. What the heck ARE we talking about then? A > law >against spanking, period….or against reasonable force in an already > existing >law? Either way, I’d no doubt be against such a law. The terms of any such >thing are usually just too broad and too easily abused. >Josie

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I wouldn’t necessarily say that you woudln’t be able to restrain your son if >the need arose, even under the new law (if it passses).  YOu’ve stated that >the proposal reads "if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under >the circumstances."  Given his cognigtive limitations, I would expect that a >restraint (done in the proper manner) to prevent injury to himself or others >would be considered reasonable. >My question would be just who’s going to be the one who determines or >interprets the word `reasonable`? And who gets to pick that `person`? And who >gets to pick `that` person, and so on and so on? >Josie

Aside from your objection what is being stricken is the clause that says you may use reasonable force.  If that is stricken, then you may never use any force at all. The law rosee quoted is being *repealed* not added. Dorothy

Response:

No what the thread referenced is that they are trying to repeal the law which *allows* all caregivers of children to use *reasonable* force and to the law that apparently included spanking.  So by repealing it that would have the effect of banning spanking and also any other physical restraint used on a child. Dorothy

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Aside from your objection what is being stricken is the clause that says you >may use reasonable force.  If that is stricken, then you may never use any >force at all. >The law rosee quoted is being *repealed* not added. >Dorothy >I guess I’m alittle confused then. I thought this whole thread was about the >law in Canada that concerned `spanking` period. I thought that they wanted to >pass such a law against spanking. While I’ve never felt the need to spank, and >think that there is almost always a better way, I’d be quite upset if the US >were to try and pass such a law. What the heck ARE we talking about then? A law >against spanking, period….or against reasonable force in an already existing >law? Either way, I’d no doubt be against such a law. The terms of any such >thing are usually just too broad and too easily abused. >Josie

Response:

Hi all! First a few comments on some of the items I’ve read here: 1- I’m interested in what exactly the change in legislation with regard to spanking was (in Canada)? There were so many posts exchanged that I couldn’t track down what exactly the legislation in question is. 2- My partner is a school teacher. The parent teacher conferences (jokingly referred to as "Meet the Creature" night in our house) are always held in the evenings. How else would parents get to them? It’s high school level so many of the families are two income full-time at that point. No offense is meant to any parent who can be available during the day. Still, it’s unfair to parents who cannot be available during the day to hold conferences and then blast the parents who do not attend for their "lack of interest in their child’s life." Just my two cents. Now my original question: We are looking to save as much money as possible by buying second hand items. Since this is our first baby, I have all the natural (overly concerned?) inclinations towards safety. What should I look out for when buying a crib and/or stroller second hand? Beyond the obvious spacing of crib bars and areas fingers could be pinched in, of course. Thanks for taking the time to respond. -J

Response:

>I wouldn’t necessarily say that you woudln’t be able to restrain your son if >the need arose, even under the new law (if it passses).  YOu’ve stated that >the proposal reads "if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under >the circumstances."  Given his cognigtive limitations, I would expect that a >restraint (done in the proper manner) to prevent injury to himself or others >would be considered reasonable.

My question would be just who’s going to be the one who determines or interprets the word `reasonable`? And who gets to pick that `person`? And who gets to pick `that` person, and so on and so on? Josie

Response:

> Hi all! > Now my original question: > We are looking to save as much money as possible by buying second hand > items. Since this is our first baby, I have all the natural (overly > concerned?) inclinations towards safety. What should I look out for when > buying a crib and/or stroller second hand? Beyond the obvious spacing of > crib bars and areas fingers could be pinched in, of course. > Thanks for taking the time to respond. > -J

Welcome to the group!!   I am a big bargain shopper too.  My suggestion would be to go to the second hand baby stores.  We have a chain here (Indiana) called Once Upon A Child.  But I am sure you can find one no matter where you are.  They sell anything and everything you could need for the baby.   A few things to think about though, Rosee already mentioned the paint on furniture.  If you buy a used crib or changing table,or anything else that is wooden and painted just plan on refinishing it. There is really no way to tell what sort of paint is on it. So just make sure it’s something safe by putting safe paint on there.  :-} As to car seats, one thing I remember reading is that if you have a wreck, even if the seat does not look damaged, you will need to replace it. There could be small cracks that are not easily seen.  These weaken the seat.  If you buy a secondhand one you will not know how it was used/abused by the previous owner. So you might think about asking for a new one as a baby gift. I know they are pricey.  But if several people go together and pitch in, it’s not too much for anyone.  (When I was pregnant with my son, I decided I was going to stay home with the children.  Several of the women I worked with went together and bought me a baby carseat.  It was wonderful and not too much for any one of them as they all pitched in.)   You can certainly stock up on baby clothes at the second hand stores too!  I have gotten sleepers there many times.  (Sleepers are so expensive for the amount of fabric in them, can you tell I sew??  lol)  I know both of my children spent a lot of time in sleepers when they were tiny!  So you can never have too many of those.   Don’t forget about garage sales!  Those are great places to find clothing for really really cheap. Too if you have any friends who have children, you might see if they would be willing to sell you outgrown stuff at garage sale prices.  I know with several of my friends, we all pass clothing around. My next door neighbor has a son and daughter.  I have a daughter and son.  (listed in birth order.)  When her son outgrows something, she hands it down to me for mine.  When my daughter outgrows something, I hand it down to her for hers.  :-}  That works really well for us. Good luck with everything and congrats on your baby!! Sharon

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi there! > My name is rosee, I’m new to this group too. > With regards to the change is legislation, there is an > attempt, by a group called Justice for Children and Youth, > to have Section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code, struck > down, based on the concept that it is in violation of the > Canadian Charter of Rights. > That particular section reads: > "Every 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." > If struck down, parents will no longer have the right to use > any kind of physical force, not just spanking, as a method > of discipline. >  I, personally, was never much for spanking my kids. > However, my son, who was born with minimal brain > dysfunction, used to have terribly destructive temper > tantrums, until he was 3 or 4.  It was necessary, for his > own protection, to physically hold him, and restrain his > actions.  If this section of the law is struck down, even > that kind of physical force becomes illegal and punishable > by the courts.  That concerns me. > take care > rosee

I wouldn’t necessarily say that you woudln’t be able to restrain your son if the need arose, even under the new law (if it passses).  YOu’ve stated that the proposal reads "if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances."  Given his cognigtive limitations, I would expect that a restraint (done in the proper manner) to prevent injury to himself or others would be considered reasonable. Lesa

Response: