Dare said:Actually, that's called sarcasm.
Oh, OK. Well pardon me then if it is your belief that our veterens actually did fight for the right to cane people but it seems to me more likely you didn't get *my* point. Which, as I will sum up here, is that: It is better to have the perpetrators be introduced to whom they offended and taught why it is offensive, rather than having them beat up. This might be ignorance to you. If so, do you have a more enlightened viewpoint you can share?old medic said:Yes, I was going to call it ignorance, but I wasn't sure you'd get the point.
Dare said:Oh, OK. Well pardon me then if it is your belief that our veterens actually did fight for the right to cane people but it seems to me more likely you didn't get *my* point. Which, as I will sum up here, is that: It is better to have the perpetrators be introduced to whom they offended and taught why it is offensive, rather than having them beat up. This might be ignorance to you. If so, do you have a more enlightened viewpoint you can share?
Riiiight, so our veterens faught wars so we could whip vandals? They never whipped vandals and you'll notice it was abolished for a reason. Do you think vandals should be whipped with a cat o' nine tails or caned? If you do, I wouldn't be so cavalier about throwing around the "ignorant" label.old medic said:I saw your point.
And I saw you try to flame Marty for his thought on corporal punishment. Your post was very ignorant
of both English common law and Canadian law.
Corporal punishment was legal in Canada until 1972.
It was common to have lashes of the whip, or the cat of nine tails given at court until 1954.
As a corrective punishment it was legal before the war, during the war, and
after the war.
The Legion and the BESL were often supporters of even harsher measures.
Thus, I do think your mis-guided. There is no way for you to say soldiers didn't support
corporal punishment.Ā It was part of the democratic system they were defending.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/rights/50yrs/50yrs-05_e.shtml
Dare said:Riiiight, so our veterens faught wars so we could whip vandals?
They never whipped vandals
Do you think vandals should be whipped with a cat o' nine tails or caned? If you do, I wouldn't be so cavalier about throwing around the "ignorant" label.
As for Canadian Law and English common law, we can go all the way back before the Magna Carta if you want.. involuntary, unrepresented, undemocratic .....
And lastly, how is what I said a "flame". If you consider what I said to be a flame, was it your intent to flame me with your response?
Given that I am around youth regularly, I can say absolutely it will help change their ways. You just have to communicate it effectively (speak their language). Lead by example. Show them the right thing to do. Tell them why it's the right thing to do and the often neglected *demonstrate* to them why it's the right thing to do.2332Piper said:Dare, I suggest you pull the head out of the sand and look at the youth around you. Do you honestly think that making them look at the people they hurt/offended etc and saying sorry will change their ways? Because I'll tell you, it won't. Ever.
Well, I disagree with that entirely. I think humanity understands both pain and love. Sure, under your method they've stopped vandalizing military gear, but do you think you've instilled a respect for veterens? The cause of this vandalism is this disrespect and it will manifest itself elsewhere.The only thing anyone understands is pain, and if you equate pain (physical or mental) with something, you won't do it again. If these kids equate vandalizing military gear with painful welts on their body, then they'll think twice next time.
Dare said:Riiiight, so our veterens faught wars so we could whip vandals? They never whipped vandals and you'll notice it was abolished for a reason.
Well, frankly, I think his comment only deserved a "sniper" comment. That would be my opinion of an attitude that expresses a desire to publicly cane people. As for blanket statements, if the blanket fits, I have no problem with it. You seem to miss an important point in what I am saying. While veterens might support more punishment, they *fought* for the freedom of everyone else to override their opinion. So, I don't think it was the right of government to beat people up that veterens were fighting for after all. Which is why I feel my statement is apt.old medic said:Ah... Blanket statements, and the crux of this...
If you don't think I should make blanket statements saying they do,
why did you make one saying they didn't back on page two of this thread?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30977/post-220221.html#msg220221
Then when Marty tried to point that out,
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30977/post-220297.html#msg220297
you tossed in a sniper comment at him:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30977/post-220905.html#msg220905
I do appreciate the amount of research you have put into this, but correct me if I'm wrong, you're talking about criminals in a jail riot? Not punks painting graffiti?Not completely true.
Although by 1953 the CCC gave the whip under the following sections:
s.80 Assaults on the sovereign: 7 years imprisonment + whipping
s.276 Strangling to commit an indictable offence: life imprisonment + whipping
s.292 Indecent assault on female, wife beating, beating a female: 2 years + whipping
s.299 Rape: death, or life imprisonment with or without whipping
s.300 Attempts to commit rape: 7 years + whipping
s.301 Carnal knowledge of girl under 14: life imprisonment + whipping
s.302 Attempt to have carnal knowledge of girl under 14: 2 years + whipping
s.293 Indecent assault on a male: 10 years + whipping
s.457 Burglary while armed with an offensive weapon: life imprisonment + whipping
s.448 Assault with intent to rob: 3 years + whipping
Once you were incarcerated for any crime, a different set of rules applied.
After the Guelph jail riot in 1952, there were 50 sentences carried out under
lines e and k of the prison book below:
"Punishment by the strap shall only be inflicted in extreme cases and for the following offences:
(a) Assault with violence on officers.
(b) Assault with violence on other inmates.
(c) Continued course of bad conduct.
(d) Escape or attempted escape.
(e) Malicious destruction of or injury to machinery or property.
(f) Malingering.
(g) Mutinous conduct.
(h) Repeated fighting after warning.
(i) Refusal to work after warning.
(j) Repeated insolence to officers.
(k) Riotous conduct in dormitories, cells, working gangs or elsewhere.
The number of blows with the strap shall be in proportion to the offence committed, and in no case shall exceed ten at any one application. "
Well, you did bring up English common law, and I am quite sure corporal punishment and capital punishment were both widespread in the empire.I think you'd be hard pressed on that.Ā Corporal punishment was only enacted by act of the elected Canadian Parliament in 1892.
My intent was not to "flame", so if it is yours. I am abdicating this thread.Outlined at the top of this message. and;
Yes. It's the same three word sentence. I think everyone caught that.
Is he going to fight a war for it? That is context in which I used it and meant it.Wesley H. Allen said:Come off it Dare,
The only reason it was abolshed was to please the snivel libertarians and to be PC, BTW go ask a Vet what he thinks of a good caneing to the youth of today, as guess what his answer will be. Something like 'thats how it was when I was a kid, and it didn't hurt me, and maybe it would teach this criminals some respect for other peoples property'.
Well, parents are allowed to spank their kids in Canada. I'm not talking about spanking.Not that long ago, one recieved the strap at school, parents were allowed to spand their kids, and now since the 'snivels' have had their way look at things.
Maybe, or maybe it would build resentment and increase their activity. I'm sure there's one thing it would do, and that's breed a desire not to get caught again. Perhaps by becoming less interested or less active, or perhaps by becoming more skillful and more stealthy. I think there is quite a gulf of distinction between government mandated beatings and spankings by a lawful guardian. The thing that most troubled kids are missing is good *guidance*. We can teach them that a good pounding solves any problem (which is actually quite a regular theme amongst inmates), or we can teach them how to bring themselves up with explainations for their questions. Certainly there are beligerants in any situation, but most kids are easily reachable, if anyone cared enough to try. It really doesn't take a whole lot of effort. I've seen it in action first hand. I've seen kids practically begging for a positive comment because their parents have nothing good to say about them. Positive encouragement goes a long way and can make the difference. If that makes me a 'snivel', so be it. I think some people are just looking for an excuse and an outlet to take their own personal aggressions out on, but that's just speculation, of course.I reckon if the grubs that perform these cowardly crimes got caned for punnishment, there would be a lot less crimes of thsi nature, plus a host of others too.
No, thanks.PSĀ How about filling in your profile too.
I agree but I doubt that there is going to be much support for that in academia. They're probably going to view it as a recruiting effort. Generally speaking, (yes, I love generalisms), teens I know have an absolutely terrible understanding of history, geography and their government. They can barely write in English and have a poor vocabulary. They tend to be mediocre at math and beyond that, it's all popular culture trivia.McFarlane said:(unrelated to above post but on topic)
this is my first post on these forums.Ā i have had many discussions with one of my friends about this.Ā we both just recently joined the reserves, but we hang out with different groups of people most of the time.Ā all of my friends aren't necessarily supportive of me joining the army, but aren't against it.Ā when i told them they just basically said "oh that's cool".Ā but a little bit more on topic, is buddy's friends are (for some strange reason) against him joining the army.Ā one of them actually said "you're stupid why did you join the army? you should join the peacekeepers"!Ā and they think the C.F. is in Iraq!!Ā I just think we need some forces people (not necessarily recruiters) to come into our highschools and EDUCATE people on the Canadian Forces and their role.Ā i was appalled by how many people (i only know of a handful of people this naive) that know so little about the army.Ā the worst part is, they believe that they're misconceptions on the military are right.Ā most of what we hear about the military in the media is american news, and it's usually about the numbers of casualties, bombs dropped, or prisoners tortured; i have yet to see any BIG news that is a positive image for the military, or any on the canadian military (other than when the four canadians were killed by the american pilot {RIP}, again a negative image)
people honestly believe that the canadian forces are in Iraq, which is an example of why we need to EDUCATE our teens, and not just in history class.
Given that I am around youth regularly, I can say absolutely it will help change their ways. You just have to communicate it effectively (speak their language). Lead by example. Show them the right thing to do. Tell them why it's the right thing to do and the often neglected *demonstrate* to them why it's the right thing to do.
Dare said:This is what tyranny is...
True, but only because Canadian laws were adapted from the English law. As already discussed, they did passWell, you did bring up English common law.
Well, frankly, I think his comment only deserved a "sniper" comment.....
My intent was not to "flame", so if it is yours. I am abdicating this thread.