You can't flog prisoners in Canada. Wife beating is increasingly frowned upon. You musn't torment your dog, shove your neighbour or take a poke at the guy who dented your fender.

But it's quite all right to assault the unprotected one third of our population: Children. In fact, children are so special in our society they have their very own snippet of the Criminal Code, Section 43, that spells out just how they may be assaulted:

"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 a child...if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances."

Most people I know think that Section 43 exists merely to honour the ancient rights of parents to correct and discipline their children. Corinne Robertshaw, the civil service lawyer who recently wrote a definitive study of child abuse in Canada, thinks otherwise.

Robertshaw has shared with me the bloodchilling results of her research, which shows that Section 43 is used in Canadian courts to defend the right of adults to inflict contusions, welts, chipped teeth, bruises, bloody noses and even torture on kids in their care.

In the course of digging through court records, Robertshaw was astounded to learn that Section 43 actually functions in court as a defence for out and out child abusers.

Bruised Buttocks

True, some of the cases she unearthed are very old. Unfortunately, because the legal system works on precedents, some of these judges' opinions roll down from decade to decade, gathering a mossy authority as they go.

In 1927, a Saskatchewan teacher got away with bruising and welting the buttocks of a 10 year old girl. Every since, the judge's sonorous musings ("that part of her anatomy which has been deigned by nature for the receipt of corporal punishment") have echoed in Canadian courtrooms where adults want to justify hurting kids.

In 1951, another learned judge, this time in Quebec, fined a teacher $10.00 for an assault on a 6 and 8 year old.

But it was a very reluctant conviction. "That schoolmasters and parents have a right to use force in order to discipline their pupils...is undeniable. What would under the law generally be an assault is permitted in the case of school children...That the punishment naturally may cause pain hardly needs to be stated, otherwise the whole purpose would be lost."Page 2

"If...the pupil should suffer bruises or contusions, it does not necessarily follow that the punishment was unreasonable." What would constitute unreasonable force? Well, a 1927 judgement that still stands as a precedent said that it would be unreasonable to beat a child with an iron bar or kick him to the ground. Short of that, okay, I guess.

Violent Slap

In the past decade, for example, teachers have used Section 43 to justify a slap violent enough to chip a boy's tooth, a clout on the back of the head which drove a boy's face into the desk and bloodied his nose, and, as recently as 1978 in Ontario, four blows to the head of a boy for writing a note in class. The judge, in granting the latter teacher an absolute discharge, said the four blows were "a very slight transgression of the line."

Child abuse and brutality nestle in the snug harbour of Section 43. An Ottawa principal who, a year or so ago, strapped some young boys with the public address system on, to carry their cries into every classroom, was not even charged. Safe in the arms of Section 43.

Safe, too, was the common-law dad in Alberta a couple of years ago who beat, kicked, pulled the hair of and bruised the skin of three young girls so badly that one of them tried to commit suicide.

The judge ruled, approvingly, that all this was merely "stern physical discipline." Under Section 43, said this judge, a parent has a clear "obligation to punish."

That obligation stops short of torture, but just barely. A stepfather who beat and systematically stabbed the soles of the feet of his 11 year old stepson tried to defend himself with Section 43. He nearly got away with it by calling it punishment.

Legal Barbarity

It's clear that Section 43 is a barbarity. Experts in every field have said that it undermines all the other protections against child abuse that we try to establish.

Last summer, the House of Commons standing committee on health and welfare said that Section 43 "is a major contributing factor to the very serious problem of child abuse in Canada."

Tomorrow, I'll look at the people who defend Section 43. You might be surprised to learn who they are.

Our Myopia Contributes to the Sexual Abuse of Children
THE TORONTO STAR - January 19, 1997

A little noticed child sexual assault case that recently made its way through the Ontario Court of Appeal throws a revealing light, in its own way, on the persistent, incurable myopia with which our society responds to sexual assaults on children.

The Appeal Court ruled that a schoolteacher who had sexually molested two pre-adolescent sisters over a three-year period, and later married one of them, was indeed guilty as found. But, on the other hand, because he has ``an unblemished record as a teacher'' and his ``record in the community is excellent,'' he presents no danger to others and should be allowed to serve his one-year sentence outside of jail.

On which mountain-top are these judges living? A man who preys on little girls may have hidden his deeds from the public gaze, but, once convicted, is his record still ``unblemished''? Are other children at no possible risk from him?

The sexual assault of children is a crime of power and opportunity. Once an adult - and one in a position of trust with children - has breached the barrier and seized an opportunity to molest, all the evidence shows that he is more likely to re-offend than not. It's disturbing to think that judges could be so quick to smooth over the danger that may be masked by a middle-class veneer.

It's just this glossy armor of respectability that lets sexual predators triumph over and over again.

On the one hand, the whole country is gagging and choking with fury about Graham James, the hockey coach who pleaded guilty to two counts of sexually abusing young hockey players. So far as I can tell, sports fans are enjoying a highly pleasurable paroxysm of rage and disgust against pedophiles. On the Internet, they're vying with each other for the most snarling, over-the-top maledictions.

On the other hand, while all this sound and fury is going on, most of the commentators are rushing to limit the damage.

``I sure hope this doesn't rub off on all coaches,'' one nervous coach told a radio reporter, and his self-concern was echoed on every side. Worst of all were the parents: one woman on Morningside practically swooned about the ``outstanding'' types who coach hockey, insisting that the only possible and necessary defence is to talk openly with your children about the dangers of sexual abuse.

Another parent who is also a coach swore that ``hockey is the most important institution in Canada.''

Get a grip, people. Hockey is a game, a big business, a pastime, a way to sell beer - it's not sacred and it is not equivalent to the Canadian identity. Scores of Canadian boys have been and will be molested by coaches because adults think hockey is so damned important that the whole structure of it is unquestionable.

Adults linked to the hockey world must have turned away from James' victims, ignored the signals, refused to listen, because they had a deeper allegiance to the game, and to the authority of other adults, than to the kids.

You can urge youngsters to ``tell all'' till you're blue in the face, but most kids know instinctively that a respected adult's word will always have more weight and credibility than any child's accusation. Some parents, as we've seen, will go to almost any lengths to exonerate and defend the minister, the priest, the teacher, the choirmaster, the coach, the rabbi, the policeman. Children know this. And in despair, shame and self-defence, they will keep their silence.

Of course, if you are one of those parents who genuinely values, honors, and respects your child as much as you do the church or the hockey team, you may indeed be entrusted with difficult truths.

But you would definitely be a rare bird. Children are powerless, and we as adults are enthralled by and deferential to power. Children see this every day and know what weight to give our smarmy little lectures about abuse.

We don't seem to learn much from our endlessly repeated cycles of revelation and shock. No matter how regularly the predators bob to the surface - a cantor in Halifax, a defence department computer engineer, the Christian Brothers of Mount Cashel - we're always astonished.

When will we stop being ``shocked'' and start scrutinizing our own values to see how we ourselves help put children at risk?