Canada and the UN Convention on Corporal Punishment

Introduction

The work of Johnny (2005), entitled "UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Rationale for Implementing Participatory Rights in Schools," reported on child rights in the Canadian context as follows: "Despite its international recognition, the Convention has been met with great opposition from conservative groups who claim that the participatory principle threatens the rights of adults by providing children with excessive autonomy. This logic has largely dissuaded the United States from ratifying the Convention and has also sparked debate in Canada, where the government has been sluggish in its attempts to fully implement this international document into domestic policy and law. Correspondingly, this has thwarted the participation of youth in institutions such as schools, where educational policy does not always reflect international commitments" (Johnny, 2005).

The research presented in this paper specifically investigates Canada's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in relation to corporal punishment. The questions addressed are:

• What are Canada's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in relation to corporal punishment?
• What progress has Canada made toward banning corporal punishment in schools and homes?
• What is required to bring about a genuine commitment to, and adherence to, a ban on the use of corporal punishment in schools and homes in Canada?

Background and Definition of Corporal Punishment

The work of Sureshrani Painjtel (2007), entitled "Banning Corporal Punishment of Children" and published by the Association for Childhood Education International, states that Article 19 of the Convention specifically requires State Parties to "take appropriate measures to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation" (Painjtel, 2007). According to Painjtel, most countries and states have laws previously put into place that describe the types of discipline considered "excessive or abusive" (Painjtel, 2007). While not addressing specifically the acceptable types of home discipline, the Convention is described as giving strong support to parents in providing "nonviolent guidance and direction to their children" (Painjtel, 2007). School administrators are required to give consideration to the "human dignity" of the child in the elimination of physically or mentally harmful disciplinary practices. Painjtel (2007) further notes that "childhood is a unique and critical stage of life" and that "children the world over share the same basic needs for safety, health, nurturance and dignity" — a premise that underpins the Convention and its accompanying legal requirements.

The work entitled "Ending Corporal Punishment: Swedish Experience of Efforts to Prevent All Forms of Violence Against Children — and the Results" states that the purpose of criminalizing all forms of corporal punishment is not to punish and prosecute more parents, but rather to satisfy human rights by "giving children equal protection of their physical integrity and human dignity" (Hindberg, 2001). This sends a clear message about the wrongful nature of striking a child — it is just as wrong as striking another adult — and thereby provides consistency in child protection while educating the public about positive forms of discipline. As attitudes shift, the need for prosecution and formal interventions in child protection "will diminish" (Hindberg, 2001). Hindberg further notes a gradual social shift in which "independent thinking and the sense of responsibility, both for oneself and for others, have come to be seen as increasingly important prerequisites of the democratic social order. The concept of the child as an independent individual with rights of its own has become more prominent. This calls for a form of child education based on interaction, care and mutual respect" (Hindberg, 2001).

Corporal punishment is defined by Painjtel (2007), citing Cohen (1984), as "painful, intentionally inflicted (typically, by striking the child) physical penalty administered by a person in authority for disciplinary purposes. Corporal punishment can occur anywhere, and whippings, beatings, paddlings, and flogging are specific forms of corporal punishment."

References

Painjtel, S. (2007). Banning corporal punishment of children: A position paper. Association for Childhood Education International.

Cohen, C. P. (1984). Freedom from corporal punishment: One of the human rights of children. New York Law School Human Rights Annual, II(1).

Durrant, J. E., & Olsen, G. M. (1997). Parenting and public policy: Contextualizing the Swedish corporal punishment ban. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 19, 443–461. In: Painjtel, S. (2007). Banning corporal punishment of children: A position paper. Association for Childhood Education International.

Cain, P. M., & Albrecht, D. (2005). Coalition on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth. 15 November 2005.

Hindberg, B. (2001). Ending corporal punishment against children — and the results. Ministry of Health and Social Affairs (Social Services Division). Stockholm.

Johnny, L. (2005). UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A rationale for implementing participatory rights in schools. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 40.

CBC News. (2008, June 18). Senators approve anti-spanking bill.