So why don’t you spankers try singing Aerosmith’s “Back in the Saddle� with the line “Back with the Paddle� if you’re really bored. Puts whole new context on it for spankers, whip percussion and all!!!

Not that many of us blokes can hit Steven Tyler’s high notes.

Toad: Nice reply, good summary of what I think about Chester’s old proposal, too. There’s also a fifth point:

It defines a level of violence against children that is acceptable. It’s generally bad practice to lay out what actions are explicitly legal, and better to define actions that are explicitly illegal. That approach caused a lot of different potential problems with the proposal, including the following:

* Will unacceptable violence then be excused because it’s seen as similar to acceptable violence? We’ve already seen a slippery slope collapse under “reasonable force”, so it’s possible that the interpretation of acceptable violence might broaden. Is a glove an implement? What about scratching someone with fake fingernails? etc… can lead to troubling broadening of the law in this sort of case.

* It allows very disturbed individuals to commit violence with the intent of very minor abuse with full protection of the law, if they are well-informed about the limits of the defence of violence for parental correction. Abuse is bad in and of itself, not just because of any physical harm it may inflict- the souring effect it can have on families, the psychological issues it causes, etc… are very real and tragic consequences of abuse.

Chester Borrows attempted it, by proposing an amendment requiring that it didn’t cause or contribute to harm that is more than transitory and trifling, didn’t involve the use of a weapon or tool or other implement, and wasn’t inflicted by any means that is cruel, degrading or terrifying.

There are several fundamental flaws with a definition such as this:

1) What may not be be cruel, degrading or terrifying for one child may well be for another. How is the parent to know, in advance of the inflicting of the punishment, the emotional impact of the punishment on the child?

2) It is possible to give a “light smack” with an implement, and also possible to give a severe beating with an open hand.

3) It assumes that a parent will know, before the inflicting of the punishment, whether it will cause harm that is more than transitory and trifling. A physical punsihment inflicted on a 10 year that does not cause harm that is more than transitory and trifling may well cause substantial harm if inflicted on a 1 year old. How can parents be expected to know the extent of the harm it will cause until after it is actually inflicted?

4) It permits parents to raise the justification defence of “correction” after the event, when their motivation at the time of the event was actually anger or frustration.

These are the type of difficulties you get into if you attempt to define the extent and nature of physical force that is permissible for the purpose of correction. If the Borrows amendment had been passed, good parents could have faced prosecution in some circumstances, while in others abusive and violent parents would have been able to mount a successful defence.

“but take out even a year for basic training and it slows down people’s entry into society pretty significantly.”

Totally disagree with your statement as the time spent doing basic training will INCREASE their entry into society by teaching self discipline, self reliance, personal responsibility, respect for others, how to operate in a team environment, etc., etc.

I think if all 17 year olds were to do a years basic training, society would be far far better place.

Part of the basic training regime would be driving tests so that they would know how to handle a motor vehicle correctly. In fact raise the driving age to 17 and only issue licenses after the basic training.

Not sure how you would cover new immigrants for driving tests, but I’m sure there is a way.