Talk:Caning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Caning.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Contents

[edit] JCP

I have done a significant amount of research on CP, especially in the context of schools and the judicial system. I am opposed to countries, such as, Singapore and Malaysia, using JCP. The fact is that it is brutal. It usually causes PTSD symptoms (most likely because they have developed PTSD). I am really opposed to the practice of JCP for less serious offences, such as for violation of immigration laws. Also, since people experience pain in different ways, this punishment cannot be fair for everyone… come to think of it; this argument is true of every punishment. It’s brutal and brutalizing human beings (without it being for reasons of self-defense) is wrong!!! I have class now.

[edit] Forum

While everyone is entitled to an opinion, as expressed in the sections above, an encyclopaedia is not the right forum to pass judgment, justified or not- it must describe, as objectively as possible, and hand the reader the facts that should help him to make up his own mind.

[edit] Re: Judicial Use

This passage claims that caning was known to the French at one time as 'the English vice.' I know that the French once attached this label to homosexuality in general. I question whether it is accurate to use it specifically for caning, unless there is a source for that. Marty55 00:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbed

I am worried by the inclusion of a weblink at the bottom of this entry to www.corpun.com. In my opinion this website glorifies the caning of children and sadism in general -- to the point of being pornographic. I refer you, in particular, to the commentary that runs alongside footage of a judicial caning in Malaysia.

New British legislation will bring websites like this one into a very grey legal area, if not ban them outright.

[edit] Reply to the above

I am the editor of www.corpun.com. My website does not "glorify the caning of children" or anyone else, and it also has nothing to do with sadism or pornography. As anyone can see who goes there, its purpose is to provide factual documentation about corporal punishment of various kinds. To take the example to which you refer, my page about judicial caning in Malaysia simply describes the context for a purely factual documentary video, it does not "glorify" the procedure, indeed it warns viewers that that particular material is not for the squeamish. I am not making a value judgement about it one way or the other. You may well personally disapprove of the fact that Malaysia does this but that cannot be a reason for censoring information about it.

What "new British legislation" are you talking about? Ffaarrrreellll 21:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cane types and terminology

I think this whole section is a bit misleading. It talks about various different sorts of cane with names like "senior cane" and "reformatory cane" as though these had some standard or official meaning, but cites no sources for these rather sweeping claims. Wouldn't it be better just to say that a punishment cane can vary greatly in size from perhaps X cm long when typically used on small children, to Y cm long and Z cm thick when used judicially in Singapore or Malaysia?

I wonder if it is also worth stressing that the word "cane" in this (essentially British) context means something significantly different from what the word tends to mean in American English. A punishment cane is generally thin, swishy and flexible, typically of rattan; whereas in US usage the word mostly seems to refer to a thick, rigid stick as in "walking cane" or "(blind person's) white cane" (these things tend to be called "walking stick" and "white stick" in British English) and hence e.g. the confusion over the so-called "caning" of Senator Sumner, in which (so I understand) he was hit in the legs with a rigid walking stick simply as a physical assault rather than a punishment -- not really much at all to do with "caning" in the sense meant here.

I would also get rid of the BDSM references, which have nothing to do with corporal punishment. Ffaarrrreellll 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't know if terms like 'junior cane' and 'reformatory cane' were ever used but is aw the regulations for corporal punishment at my state secondary school and they definitely stated that a smaller cane was to be used on younger boys and all girls and a larger cane could be used on the older boys it would have been very natural to call these junior and senior canes the book published by the teachers opposed to corporal punishement("caning: a last resort?") reprodued a flyer from a firm which made canes, which certaininly talked about junior, standard and senior models...89.243.19.32 21:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Beanokid

[edit] Link

Do people really think the external link of the video is necessary? I'm leaning towards no, but I'm open to being persuaded. WLU 16:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the photo on the page is enough. The video seems like too much information, IMO. kawaputratorque 18:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

Please see... the reason for merger is tivial. 222.225.124.80 09:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC).

Should it be merged with the page on corporal punishment? It is naturally a sub division of it surely?
  • No, CP is large enough in scope (and controversial!) while caning can also be ractices for other purposes, such as SM games Arcarius (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famous men who mention getting the cane

I had started work on an edit and had been about to add some more references but see it had been deleted. No reason was given, but could be because I had not added references which is fair enough. Quite a few men mention having got the cane in autobiographies etc. Shane Warne did in a TV interview with Michael Parkinson. Shall put back up unless the anonymous editer strongly objects. Informed Owl (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

Perhaps there is (for want of a better term) a conflict of interest here in that I posted the paragraph on the article on the first page. I would sugges though that rather than just remove it (as one anonymous poster and one named poster have done) that this be discussed on the talk page first. Am not going to go putting markers or protections on here, but would suggest that discussion rather than unilateral removal might be the better way forward. Informed Owl (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

As the corporal punishment was in widespread use in British schools until fairly recently a list of men who acknowledged getting the cane is potentially extremely large. We do not need this. PatGallacher (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)