Poor logic shows weakness of case against spanking ban, Published in the Ottawa Citizen, 7 October 2004

Re: Spanking ban a step too far

Today's editorial only shows the poverty of arguments against the banning of spanking.

"To legally ban spanking" does not put "the state squarely in the family rooms of the nation without a compelling reason", anymore than laws against spousal abuse (or laws against assault in general) do. Neither is it a big step for parents to "face legal sanction" for spanking children. Parents already face legal sanction on a number of fronts for inappropriately disciplining their children, and this only adds one more instance.

As for hats, junk food, etc., these metaphorical arguments are notoriously weak in nature, showing the strain required to make an argument that does not rest on logic. Freedom of choice is hardly a workable defense in most cases of assault, and children cannot consent to being assaulted as some adults might.

Spanking only teaches children to resolve their problems with violence. If we can all agree that the reasonable resolution of disputes within a due process is preferable to violent anarchy, then we can all agree that spanking should be illegal.