CORRESPONDENTS' VIEWS

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue 164, 13 July 1943, Page 2

CORRESPONDENTS' VIEWS

THE CANE IN PARLIAMENT (To the Editor.) Oh, no, not for the seats of p ar liamentarians —that would never do —but for their very serious con sideration. The caning of secondary schoolboys has been the subject of contention for as long as I can re. member. How about clinching the deal? Our heads have ordained an election. There are a very large number of people in the electorates who oppose this vicious practice Why not put the question to candil dates, "Will you, if elected, work for prohibition of caning schools?" If candidates say "Nowhy, thumbs down by sympathisers Such people are better out of Parliament. Mr. Fraser, as Minister of Education, was definitely not in favour of the infliction of corporal punishment by teachers. Mr. Mason the present Minister, was doubtful! If the cane is essential for boys, it is vital for the moral uplifting of men, but where is the man who would approve it? I have put the query to men who approve of boys getting the cane, but "nothing doing different matter altogether; think of a man's dignity, besides, it would hurt." But have not boys any dignity to uphold, and can they uphold it when they have to bend over for another boy to give them four cuts with "two other boys as essential witnesses"? The practice of caning boys is a long-standing disgrace to the scholastic profession. The subject raised in Parliament need not detract from the war effort. it could and should be completed in five minutes. RIDLEY H. COLEBROOK.