When Spanking is Preferable to Murder

Uzza: But in Québec, I don’t have to wear a scarf?

Archie: That is another country. They have a Charter of Values and we have a Charter of Rights.

Uzza: Why would that make a difference?

Archie: Values are values, they are what they are. Rights are different.

Uzza: What do values and rights have to do with my having to wear a scarf to get service?

Archie: Everything, in the weird times we live in. Rights can be ranked, and in the Canadian Charter of Rights, religious rights are right up there …

From Remembering Uzza

The number one ranked freedom in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is religion. Expect a Charter challenge – supported by the Canadian Jewish Congress – by the Islamic lobby should the Trudeau government follow through on its promise to repeal Section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code which allows parents to physically discipline their children. The recommendation to do so comes from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Battered children and even siblings, who only witness the violence done to others, including their mothers, grow up to accept violence as a legitimate means of settling grievances and imposing their will, and this has to stop, and First Nations seem to be willing to let the law intervene if that is what it takes.

Islam operates under a different set of laws where violence in the home is sanctioned by God if certain conditions are met; some only have to be in the batterer's mind. The most quoted example is about the right of a husband to beat his wives if he fears they will do something that might displease him or God.

4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made some of them excel the others, and because they spend some of their wealth. Hence righteous women are obedient, guarding the unseen (their sex) which Allah has guarded. And those of them that you fear might rebel, admonish them and abandon them in their beds and beat them. Should they obey you, do not seek ways of harming them; for Allah is Sublime and Great.

Where children are concerned, both parents can beat them under certain circumstances; as an incentive to get them to spend more time memorizing the Koran (in 2012, a British mother who accidently beat her seven-year-old son to death for failing to learn the Qur'an by heart was sentenced to seventeen years in prison), to get them to perform their prayers is another.

Under Islamic Law, a parent is justified in beating a child between the ages of ten and fifteen if all else fails, including the threat of spending an eternity in Hell, to convince him or her to perform the mandated prayers at the time He prescribed and as demonstrated by His martinet of a messenger.

Under the Sharia, whose meaning is God's Law, a parent who fears that a child's demonstrated unwillingness to do the prayers as he or she is told, even after being beaten into reluctantly doing so, will abandon Islam when no longer under their care, the Koran expects them to follow the example of Khidr and kill them to avoid such an eventuality. Adults who deliberately avoid doing the prayers as prescribed can be summarily executed.

Narrated Abdullah bin Masud:

The Prophet recited Suratan-Najm (103) at Mecca and prostrated while reciting it and those who were with him did the same except an old man who took a handful of small stones or earth and lifted it to his forehead and said, "This is sufficient for me."

Later on, I saw him killed as a non-believer.

Bukhari 19.173

If past decisions of the Supreme Court where religion is the argument are any indication, even where the welfare of children is concerned, e.g. the Kirpan Decision, I expect the Court to allow parents some leeway in physically disciplining their rebellious offsprings if the violence is meant to instill a lasting respect for revealed truths, immutable facts revealed to a mortal by a god which the Charter implicitly recognizes as being superior to whatever is revealed by any other method, and perhaps in the process saving their lives.

Bernard Payeur, January 30, 2016