There are three things I would like to say.
First of all, I was subjected to violence. Despite all the efforts I have made in my life, I am still scarred on the inside and this has had profound consequences. I have been diagnosed with mental health issues and my life is limited. I take medication every day just to control the debilitating levels of adrenalin and cortisol in my body. However, I don't think I'm a person who lacks intelligence or abilities. I could have been a good citizen and contributed to society. Instead, I have been incapacitated since 2017 and I do not know to what extent I will be able to recover.
To illustrate what section 43 means, I have brought an exact replica of the paddle that was used to beat us at the church-run school. That was proven in court. This paddle is the symbol of what section 43 meant from 1892 to 2004. I understand that the Supreme Court issued a clarification on this section in 2004, but that is indeed what section 43 was designed for. This wooden paddle is the exact symbol of what this section represents. I know that limits were set in 2004 by the Supreme Court, but that does not change the fact that groups of Christians, such as evangelical Baptists, among whom I was raised, used this object until 2004. Now they recommend using your hand. They promote this practice, they provide training and, for religious and ideological reasons, they still tell parents that if they love their children, they should be hitting them.
Personally, I find it absurd that an adult man has the right to spank his three, four, five or six‑year‑old daughter nicely and reasonably, regardless of age. If an adult did this to someone else without their consent, it would be deemed sexual assault, but a man can reasonably strike his 11‑year‑old daughter's buttocks. This is an aberration.
As long as section 43 is in force, these religious groups will be able to continue this practice based on the same ideological grounds, as they have been doing since colonization. They can still use the church pulpit to tell parents that they have to punish their children and hit them, using all kinds of biblical verses as a justification.
That legacy has also had an impact on first nations, as you know. It's not part of first nations culture. The word “awashish”, which means “little being of light”, stands in stark contrast to the Augustine doctrine of western Christianity, which says that the child is born in sinfulness and that it is morally justified for a parent to strike his or her child. That's not the case in aboriginal culture.
I've heard people ask whether repealing section 43 could lead to possible convictions for parents, to which I would say that at some point, the cycle has to be broken. The cycle of educational violence in Canada has been enshrined in law for 132 years. At some point, we have to break that cycle. We're at a stage in society where fewer and fewer parents are doing this. It's becoming less and less customary and less and less accepted. The colonial legacy of this section of the act must end.