The Nanny state and a truly stupid judge trick

Needless to say I am not happy with the micromanagement of families by the nanny state. Here is my letter to the editor in the Gazette. ( I sent it in 3 days ago) and the editorial from the National Post)

This is none of the state's business
Letter
Published: 1 hour ago
Re: "Father appealing decision overruling punishment" (Gazette, June 18) and "Senate adopts bill limiting use of force against kids" (Gazette, June 19).
The nanny state knows no bounds or shame. Justice Suzanne Tessier, in what can only be called a moronic ruling, has overturned a father's grounding of his 12-year-old daughter. What conceivable business has the state in this matter?
Judge Tessier and the girl's mother have de- facto colluded to undermine and subvert the parental rights of the father. Perhaps a better question is "why is this woman a judge?" She seems to want to micromanage this family. I suspect that this piece of judicial activism will be overturned on appeal. Tessier should be ashamed of herself. I hope the father lodges a complaint against her.
Then there's the Senate that adopted a bill that could allow parents to be charged with assault if they spank their kids. The bill's sponsor believes that minor offences won't be prosecuted. But given the likes of Tessier, parents should be afraid.
It is time for the nanny state to back off and allow parents actually to act like parents.
Roy Eappen




Jaws drop as Quebec judge backs girl grounded by dad
Don Butler , Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, June 18, 2008
OTTAWA - If you deny your children access to TV or withhold their allowance, can they take you to court? And win?

That implausible scenario emerged after a judge in Gatineau, Que., sided with a 12-year-old girl who challenged her father after he refused to let her go on a school trip for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet.
Experts in family law and child welfare say they were dumbfounded by last Friday's ruling by Superior Court Justice Suzanne Tessier.
The senate has also decided to interfere with parenting. Why does the nanny state interfere in family life? It is big brother micromanaging everything.
This is not unlike Bill S-209, a motion by the Senate to ban spanking in Canada. It must now go to the House of Commons for approval before it can become law.

We're not fans of spanking. We recommend parents try more creative, non-physical ways to correct their children's misbehaviours. Still, we know enough to leave the final decisions on what is appropriate to individual parents in their own homes. They are not state or community responsibilities. Courts have routinely upheld the right of parents to apply mild, corporal punishment -- no implements or closed hands -- so long as it is not done in anger and leaves no lasting marks.

Spanking has fallen out of fashion, a trend we applaud. But for a parent who sees no alternative, spanking must remain a threat, and to remain a threat it must remain a real option.
Raising a child is tough enough without parents having to worry about lawyers, judges and politicians looking over their shoulders every minute. The Quebec father in this case no doubt knows sexual predators are all over the Internet trying to coerce impressionable young girls into meeting them. He was merely trying to keep his daughter safe from them. That's not easy at the best of times, but it is doubly difficult with the courts seek to superimpose themselves on parental decision-making.