Part 1: * Right to practice their religion (s. 2) * Section 43: * Does not infringe a child’s right to security or a child’s right to equality * Infringement is justified under s. 1 as reasonable in a free democratic society * S. 43 is unconstitutionally vague * Parents who were spanked say that hitting children is for their own good and a form of discipline that is reasonable * Chastity’s parents was raised in a very religious community and disciplining children with physical infliction or their belief in punishing children when they are wrong is normal for them * Remedy: When parents religion rights are violated , they can ask for a remedy (s. 24 (1)) * Her parents follow strictly their religious belief which states that disciplining your children is okay when they are wrong so that a “child does not stray from the paths of righteousness” * Common sense: parents inherited the practice from their own parents who also learn it from their parents * They were worried sick of their child and they do not want her to stray and violate their religion!

Part 2:

* S. 43 is unconstitutionally vague & that it is not clear what is “reasonable under the circumstances” * S. 7: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” * She may have not known what she was doing and like any other teenager she was just experimenting with what her friends were doing. * S. 12: “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” * When they fracture and broke their child’s hand * The punishment was exaggerated * U.S. has 80% of parents practice spanking * U.S. has the most underage assault cases involving exaggerated children punishment