On 03 Aug 2004 14:01:38 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

And yet many *researchers* have found that VERBAL ABUSE IS FAR MORE
THREATENING, anxiety-provoking, and harmful to children than quick,
consequential spanking.

Parents who chose not to use CP have little trouble seeing the danger
in verbal abuse...hence they do not usually choose it as an
alternative. Invariabely they either already parented with the
alternative of gentleness, or if they are X-compulsives, they quickly
go hunting for the gentler way. Except.....

It's only those that spank and contemplate having it taken away from
them that consider verbal abuse as a "discipline" alternative.

Goes to show you how brain dead they are. And you are one of them.

As you know I advocate non-punitive parenting...that is gentle,
supportive, loving, and instructional parenting. I did not punish my
children and they easily overcame their frustrations with learning and
became independent problem solvers, trusting me to help, assist,
support, when they indicated they needed it.

So you can't be talking about me...but rather you and the spanking
compulsives crowd that can't think beyond "punishment" as discipline.

One can see the verbal abuse which is practiced on this Ng by those
who
ostensibly eschew punishment.

What is it you are asking for, Plant? Why don't you come right out
with it and tell us about your ...ummmm...ahhhh...peculiar fetishes
and desires? R R R R R R

Personally I'm not into that kind of weirdness. But
you....hmmmm...reminds me of another poster who once said of bloody
beatings that "I deserved them." You recall?

You are aware of course that YOU are verbally abusive? Or aren't you?

Doan countered thusly:

He diverted and weaseled. And in fact chose a model as analogy that
does not hold up under closer inspection.

In other words, his "countered thusly" was, as usual, a lie or
ignorance. Take your pick, I know my pick.

For a clearer and more objective veiw on the question of Sweden's
policy on CP read the following:

http://www.nospank.net/durrant2.htm

You'll also be pleased to note that yet another country has banned all
CP, home and school. This country's youth has been known for its
wildness, with drinking and drugs being something of a problem there.
Though the crime rate is rather low for juveniles.

It will take about 12 years to see the real results, as children being
born from 2003 on, will fall under that law and be entering the teen
years by then.

It will be interesting to see if the abuse rates drop, though, like
Sweden and all other countries where more attention is placed on this
issue suddenly, there will be an obvious rise in reporting abuse.
Before beating a child was legal, so of course what could people
report that was illegal about it.....? Nothing.

Subject: Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce
case
From: Doan
Date: 8/2/2004 6:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


But we know that Sweden is perfect! Swedish parents don't spank,
they
just yell! ;-)

Dear dear Droananator,

There was an increase in yelling. We do not know if all who stopped
spanking turned to yelling.

The info is not clear, and the message is not what you claim it is.

Given the training that was offered they certainly didn't have to
yell. But the training was not mandatory.

However, you compulsives can't seem to do other than assume that loss
of one way of hurting and humiliating a child has to be replaced with
another for "discipline," now don't you?

Admit it...it's about brute force parenting, not loving, gentle
supportive parenting.

Let us know when you have the real answer to The Question.

Where is the line that marks the boundary between CP for discipline
and CP that injures?

Kane



Doan

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Canada is ahead of the USA in its treatment of children, but
Canmada
isn't perfect either. Thanks for the post.

LaVonne

Fern5827 wrote:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Calgar...09/532794.html



Fri, July 9, 2004



Judge OKs spanking

Dad's actions ruled reasonable
By KEVIN MARTIN, CALGARY SUN

Spanking his eight-year-old son after the boy threatened to
"grab a
lawyer" and
sue him wasn't a criminal act by a city dad, a judge ruled
yesterday.
Judge Bob
Wilkins said James Dean Boyd exercised reasonable force when he
disciplined his
son 19 months ago.

"The force used by the accused falls within the scope enunciated
by the
Supreme
Court of Canada and was 'a minor corrective force of a
transitory and
trifling
nature,'" Wilkins said.

"The action of the accused in spanking his son was for
corrective
purposes."

Police were called by Boyd's ex-wife after she discovered
bruising on the
child's bum after he was returned to her Nov. 23, 2002,
following an
access
visit.

Defence lawyer Joel Livergant argued the bruising occurred while
the
child was
tobogganing, but Wilkins said without medical evidence, he could
not say
what
caused the injury.

Boyd admitted spanking the child three times on the behind for
disciplinary
reasons after the child had acted up and told the father to
"shut up."

The incident occurred at Boyd's brother's home and involved a
dispute
between
the child, whom Wilkins did not identify by name, and his
cousins.

The judge noted the boy stood on stairs, yelling "I hate this
place, I
hate
you, I'm going to grab a lawyer, I'm going to sue you all and
I'm going
to live
in a foster home."

"This outburst was followed by the child telling his father to
'shut
up,'"
Wilkins said.

"I accept his explanation that the spanking was done for
corrective
purposes,
as a last resort and was not done out of anger, maliciousness or
revenge," the
judge said.

Wilkins said the Criminal Code permits persons in authority to
use force
for
discipline as long as it is reasonable under the circumstances.

He said Boyd's actions were intended to be for educative or
corrective
purposes
and the force used was not excessive.

Outside court, a relieved Boyd said it's important to have
legislation
that
protects a parent's right to discipline a child.

"It just reinforces, or gives the parent the opportunity to
reinforce a
verbal
command with a reasonable amount of force," he said.

"To let young people know ... there's a consequence for their
actions."