ChristianGovernance eletter – June 28, 2012
Spanking the Supreme Court
~ ~ ~
Now to our main comment on this matter…
In the Spring 2012 issue of Home School Legal Defence Association Canada’s Court Report & Communiqué, there was an article titled, “Spanking: The Supreme Court view.” Overall, it was a reasonable report on the issue, but I was alarmed at her conclusion where she wrote: “The Court demonstrated a balanced approach; there was concern for the welfare of children, as well as concern for parents to have spanking included as one of many tools needed to educate, discipline, and correct children.”
ChristianGovernance considers the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision against spanking to be an act of treachery against the lawfully constituted realm of parental government. Parental government may not be a lawfully constituted realm of government in Canada, but it is in the Kingdom of God, and God’s law trumps Canadian law. Fundamentally, the state – including the Court – has no legitimate policy-making or law-making jurisdiction on this point. The Court’s decision to hear the case demonstrates it’s strident commitment to Humanism/Socialism. It doesn’t matter what the particulars may be in its ruling on the case; those are secondary matters. Even there, to draw firm age-based lines to ban spanking across-the-board below and above certain ages – and to do so based at least in part on Humanistic theories of human development – is to restrict freedom and responsibility on the basis of conjecture and fallible conclusions. This is Biblically indefensible, as is banning outright the use of objects for spanking.
We find nothing reasonable, balanced or Biblical about the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on spanking. Christians must take a stand in principle and practise against vigilantism, including vigilante courts that run roughshod over God’s lawfully constituted governmental bodies – e.g., parents. Christians must remain vigilant and principled in our battles against Humanist tyranny. HSLDA does a fantastic job at this, primarily on behalf of homeschooling families. We hope they don’t mind too much our criticism of this unusual oversight in their commentary on parental rights. It provided a valuable opportunity to reiterate our stance on sphere sovereignty and the legitimate human jurisdiction of the family and parental government in a healthy and free society.