I've been trying to find a moment to summarise the themes that have arisen in comments here and have failed miserably so far. Apologies. In lieu of this, I thought I would just raise one anonymous comment to post level...(hope that's OK), as I do think it makes several of the many essential points that were raised:
"The review team and it's masters would do well to remember human rights, particularly these articles:
12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
16(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 26 (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."
3 comments:
Much as I would like to applaud your efforts, I am afraid that in fact the articles you highlight can be interpreted in at least two ways, for example:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
This fundamental right can be construed to imply (article 30 notwithstanding) that the state has an obligation to ensure the religious freedom of children whose parents may wish them to be schooled and raised in a particular religion.
Ultimately, noble as the intent behind the framing of these rights was, by imposing obligations upon states they advance the reach of states into the private sphere; mission creep on a grand scale. This is a source (not the sole source) of the attitude to legislation taken by LEAs when they interpret it as obliging them to interfere with EHE. You and I might interpret the legislation differently, but our reading runs counter to the prevailing culture, which sees government as the ultimate provider of 'rights'.
Yes, I do see human rights legislation as offering governments the chance to intervene and blur the boundaries along the way.
The reason I think it worth raising is that re for example article 18, what I see in the HE community is this: that most HE children when polled (77%) and otherwise asked, say that they would prefer not to have their education interfered with by the authorities. So even when the authorities do try to insist on seeing them, they would clearly be infringing the human rights of these children.
Indeed John but maybe the Human Rights argument the best tool we have?
Do you have a better one?
Elizabeth
Post a Comment