I agree that there are biological impulses (referring to Heidi's facebook entry - but don't want to have a long comment on FB!!) for most parents to do the best for their children and protect them and that the state would do better not to interfere with this.
I can see that Deech is putting forward a cleverly worded argument designed to make her opponents feel guilty, but I don't think that Deech is as concerned to respect the rights of the child as she would like people to think. As is pointed out well by many, she wants to protect a tiny percentage of abused children by a blanket control of all children - even though as many point out this is already accomplished - as much as it ever can be in an imperfect world - by social services. She misguidedly, imo, thinks that a third party has to be involved - to decide whether the children's rights are being respected or not. It's the fact that the third party is supposed to make the decision that is the giveaway. She doesn't really believe, therefore, in the rights of children at all. She clearly doesn't believe that a child can actually know for his/herself when his privacy should be respected, when he should be left alone from interference, when he would prefer to deal with his parents' foibles rather than an institution's ideals and errors. A 3rd party should, ideally, just support the child's choice and NOTHING ELSE, if the desire was really to respect the child's rights. It should not even attempt to enforce their vision of what the child *should* want. So if a child said they didn't want to be HEed and parent wanted them to be, then a 3rd party could point out to parents that they are not respecting the child's rights, and if the young person wished the parents could be possibly obliged to school them. However, I think a potentially better solution than LA workers is some sort of a court where children can take cases of familial injustice should they so wish. It isn't right to choose to mildly abusing many in order to avoid the tiny percentage of serious victims, sadly perhaps but it still doesn't make it right - other solutions have to be found.
d (or am I missing the argument!! It's a complex one!)
The rights of the child and what the child want might not be the same thing. While under natural law (which the state is obliged to protect but doesn't) parents have a right and duty to the education of their children and therefore the child has the right to receive that education-but the problem begins when saying what form that education has to take; what is "suitable" education. If the state decides a child can have the right to demand to be educated in school, then conversely children will demand to be home educated. Interestingly when people like Deech go on about children's rights it soon becomes obvious they don't mean children's right to respect and dignity or even a choice in education-they simply use the words to excuse forcing the state into homes pretending it's for the child's own good.
There is a precedent in America I believe where some children have taken parents to court but the cases are extremely rare and both legally and morally troubling. Arbitration might be a better system if one is required. If LA staff hadn't behaved so badly over Badman we might even be thinking of LA staff being trained in this. So much damage has been done now I am unsure how it will all go in the future.
Thanks Mum6Kids. What you say below is what I meant to say!!
'it soon becomes obvious they don't mean children's right to respect and dignity or even a choice in education-they simply use the words to excuse forcing the state into homes pretending it's for the child's own good'
And yet they claim they do want children to have these rights. I read somewhere recently children are the most disenfranchised members of the human race
I agree that there are biological impulses (referring to Heidi's facebook entry - but don't want to have a long comment on FB!!) for most parents to do the best for their children and protect them and that the state would do better not to interfere with this.
ReplyDeleteI can see that Deech is putting forward a cleverly worded argument designed to make her opponents feel guilty, but I don't think that Deech is as concerned to respect the rights of the child as she would like people to think. As is pointed out well by many, she wants to protect a tiny percentage of abused children by a blanket control of all children - even though as many point out this is already accomplished - as much as it ever can be in an imperfect world - by social services. She misguidedly, imo, thinks that a third party has to be involved - to decide whether the children's rights are being respected or not. It's the fact that the third party is supposed to make the decision that is the giveaway. She doesn't really believe, therefore, in the rights of children at all. She clearly doesn't believe that a child can actually know for his/herself when his privacy should be respected, when he should be left alone from interference, when he would prefer to deal with his parents' foibles rather than an institution's ideals and errors. A 3rd party should, ideally, just support the child's choice and NOTHING ELSE, if the desire was really to respect the child's rights. It should not even attempt to enforce their vision of what the child *should* want. So if a child said they didn't want to be HEed and parent wanted them to be, then a 3rd party could point out to parents that they are not respecting the child's rights, and if the young person wished the parents could be possibly obliged to school them.
However, I think a potentially better solution than LA workers is some sort of a court where children can take cases of familial injustice should they so wish. It isn't right to choose to mildly abusing many in order to avoid the tiny percentage of serious victims, sadly perhaps but it still doesn't make it right - other solutions have to be found.
d (or am I missing the argument!! It's a complex one!)
The rights of the child and what the child want might not be the same thing. While under natural law (which the state is obliged to protect but doesn't) parents have a right and duty to the education of their children and therefore the child has the right to receive that education-but the problem begins when saying what form that education has to take; what is "suitable" education.
ReplyDeleteIf the state decides a child can have the right to demand to be educated in school, then conversely children will demand to be home educated. Interestingly when people like Deech go on about children's rights it soon becomes obvious they don't mean children's right to respect and dignity or even a choice in education-they simply use the words to excuse forcing the state into homes pretending it's for the child's own good.
There is a precedent in America I believe where some children have taken parents to court but the cases are extremely rare and both legally and morally troubling.
Arbitration might be a better system if one is required.
If LA staff hadn't behaved so badly over Badman we might even be thinking of LA staff being trained in this.
So much damage has been done now I am unsure how it will all go in the future.
Thanks Mum6Kids. What you say below is what I meant to say!!
ReplyDelete'it soon becomes obvious they don't mean children's right to respect and dignity or even a choice in education-they simply use the words to excuse forcing the state into homes pretending it's for the child's own good'
And yet they claim they do want children to have these rights. I read somewhere recently children are the most disenfranchised members of the human race
d
Deech seemed to imply that HE children are desperate to go to school and would tell that to an inspector if only they could be seen alone.
ReplyDeleteYet she seems to have no interest in the human rights of children in school, many of whom would ask to be educated at home, given the chance.