Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

John Furlong, CEO of Vanoc, Accused of Abuse in Schools


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
35 replies to this topic

#31 AK_19

AK_19

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,461 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 08

Posted 09 October 2012 - 02:14 PM

Even if the allegations were true (minus the sexual abuse part), would you reprimand someone for something that was common practice and legal in 1969? I don't know about everyone else here but I'm indifferent about the allegations whether true or untrue. I'm not going to judge someone's action in 1969 by 2012 moral standards.

Edited by AK_19, 09 October 2012 - 02:15 PM.


#32 AK_19

AK_19

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,461 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 08

Posted 09 October 2012 - 02:37 PM

Actually just looked up laws, apparently a teacher can still hit a student (no weapons) from the ages of 2-12.

#33 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 09 October 2012 - 02:56 PM

Actually just looked up laws, apparently a teacher can still hit a student (no weapons) from the ages of 2-12.

The SCOC was clear that the law is to be applied differently as between teaches and parents. See Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76, 2004 SCC 4
http://scc.lexum.org...4/2004scc4.html

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin writing for the majority revised legal doctrine that had lumped parents and teachers together. McLachlin wrote "corporal punishment by teachers is unacceptable," but the court nonetheless concluded that teachers could use reasonable force to "remove children from classrooms or secure compliance with instructions."

38Contemporary social consensus is that, while teachers may sometimes use corrective force to remove children from classrooms or secure compliance with instructions, the use of corporal punishment by teachers is not acceptable. Many school boards forbid the use of corporal punishment, and some provinces and territories have legislatively prohibited its use by teachers: see, e.g., SchoolsAct, 1997, S.N.L. 1997, c. S-12.2, s. 42; School Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 412, s. 76(3); Education Act, S.N.B. 1997, c. E-1.12, s. 23; School Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. S-2.1, s. 73; Education Act, S.N.W.T. 1995, c. 28, s. 34(3); Education Act, S.Y. 1989-90, c. 25, s. 36. This consensus is consistent with Canada’s international obligations, given the findings of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations noted above. Section 43 will protect a teacher who uses reasonable, corrective force to restrain or remove a child in appropriate circumstances. Substantial societal consensus, supported by expert evidence and Canada’s treaty obligations, indicates that corporal punishment by teachers is unreasonable.


To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#34 AK_19

AK_19

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,461 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 08

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:05 PM

The SCOC was clear that the law is to be applied differently as between teaches and parents. See Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76, 2004 SCC 4
http://scc.lexum.org...4/2004scc4.html

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin writing for the majority revised legal doctrine that had lumped parents and teachers together. McLachlin wrote "corporal punishment by teachers is unacceptable," but the court nonetheless concluded that teachers could use reasonable force to "remove children from classrooms or secure compliance with instructions."

38Contemporary social consensus is that, while teachers may sometimes use corrective force to remove children from classrooms or secure compliance with instructions, the use of corporal punishment by teachers is not acceptable. Many school boards forbid the use of corporal punishment, and some provinces and territories have legislatively prohibited its use by teachers: see, e.g., SchoolsAct, 1997, S.N.L. 1997, c. S-12.2, s. 42; School Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 412, s. 76(3); Education Act, S.N.B. 1997, c. E-1.12, s. 23; School Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. S-2.1, s. 73; Education Act, S.N.W.T. 1995, c. 28, s. 34(3); Education Act, S.Y. 1989-90, c. 25, s. 36. This consensus is consistent with Canada’s international obligations, given the findings of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations noted above. Section 43 will protect a teacher who uses reasonable, corrective force to restrain or remove a child in appropriate circumstances. Substantial societal consensus, supported by expert evidence and Canada’s treaty obligations, indicates that corporal punishment by teachers is unreasonable.


Not that I disagree with you but the Department of Justice website states "The parent, caregiver, or teacher using force must be correcting behaviour at the time it is happening, and the person must not use force on a child in anger."

http://www.justice.g...fo/mcb-cce.html

If what you say is true they should probably update it to not include teachers as a part of it.

#35 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 09 October 2012 - 07:23 PM

Not that I disagree with you but the Department of Justice website states "The parent, caregiver, or teacher using force must be correcting behaviour at the time it is happening, and the person must not use force on a child in anger."

http://www.justice.g...fo/mcb-cce.html

If what you say is true they should probably update it to not include teachers as a part of it.

It would not be the first time a government website misstated the law.

The SCOC is quite clear - no corporal punishment except by parents.and then only in limited circumstances.

This quote captures the law:

The final (or at least most recent) judgment on the matter arose from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in January 2004 referenced above. While it abolished physical forms of discipline in schools, it ruled that “teachers may reasonably apply force to remove a child from a classroom or secure compliance with instructions, but not merely as corporal punishment.” By way of illustration, this meant that teachers could intervene in a fight to separate or restrain students, or guide a disruptive student by the arm to a different location in the school. Thus, teachers who acted reasonably while using a minimum of force would not be subject to prosecution.

http://www.cea-ace.c...anadian-schools

Edited by Wetcoaster, 09 October 2012 - 07:26 PM.

To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#36 Special Ed

Special Ed

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,666 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 09 October 2012 - 09:01 PM

Right now, CKNW's Dan Russell is discussing the case.

One of the interesting question is why did he did not mention his Burns Lake work experience in his auto-biography. He entirely omitted it. He just talked about arriving in Canada for the first time in Edmonton.


Very suspicious he left burn lake out of his auto-biography.

If you like looking at statistics to determine who's better, you're just a casual fan.

2.41 season GAA isn't very impressive. Let's not get into playoffs and his SV%.

Cory Schneider is the next Patrick Roy.





Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.