In a shocking move that may eventually effect all families in the United Kingdom, citizen rights will be waived in a bow to UN policy, allowing unqualified government agents the ability to compel entrance into private homes, send parents out and interview their children alone. Though this is a human rights violation, and directly violates Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, pro UN backers seeded within the UK's government are pushing it through. How? They're using a flawed report by Graham Badman to justify the intrusion. This rushed report leans heavily on the UN's "Rights of the Child" (CRC) legislation which is a very controversial piece of politics if ever there was one. Many say it should be called "Rights TO the Child" because it basically signs them over to the government in decisions ala Hitler. Hitler said, “ This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.” In countries where the CRC is ratified, the government's own laws can be surpassed by the UN's authority, and the government suddenly has the ability to go around citizen protection laws already in place, by citing UN law. The CRC allows the government to legislate everything from parent's private disciplinary decisions at home, educational choices, forced exposure to anti-religious information in school hours, and even the child's hours of playtime. Of course, this was all downplayed initially - the usual line was something like, "each government can make decisions as to how to best apply the recommendations of the CRC." Watchdog human rights groups warned that ratification of the CRC would lead to violations of the rights of both children and parents by taking a few "experts" religious and child-rearing philosophies and inflicting them on the entire populace- with enforcement against the dissenters. It would also make a slow government takeover by any extremist religious group that much more horrifying, as the machine would already be in place for forcing moral choices on the people- just slip them into the schooling recommendations, interview the children, and intervene in the private lives that weren't up to standard. At the time, the pro-UN campaigns argued that the rights compromises were minimal and took pains to list "myths" about the CRC. Unfortunately, the concerns turned out to not be quite so mythic. For the first time in an English speaking country, children receiving an alternate education at home (for whatever reason- learning disabilities, travel, long-term illness, since now only around 38% educate at home for religious reasons) will be targeted for government intervention and questioning. The concern isn't educational quality- home-schooled children test out almost a third higher than the children in government schools due to tailored curriculum. The concern also isn't actually abuse, though the Badman report recommends the families be hassled just in CASE there MIGHT be abuse. Guilty until proven innocent, then? However, no reports of abuse or neglect were found. In fact, this is the only time in the history of the UK that a child at home alone with parents is considered at dire risk for abuse. But of course, we have to start somewhere. This is following a traditional course and in my opinion can safely be expected to expand to include many more "at risk" people groups (note- they now don't need any proof to decide your family or people group is "at risk"), and ultimately, all children. It always begins the same way- marginalize a people group and mock them in the media. To turn public notice away from the government's rapidly stolen power over the private lives of citizens, and justify rights violations and intrusive and unsubstantiated abuse investigations, write heartrending articles about this person or that who abused a child in whatever people group you're targeting. Fail to mention the percentage is lower than average. Say "if it only saves one child, it's worth it" while meaning it's worth violating the human rights of many thousands, compiling information and raising taxes to support an unsubstantiated increase in legislation. Send in agents looking for trouble, and when you do uncover abuse cases- since abuse is everywhere- trumpet them as a great success and proof of a well-founded program. Meanwhile, the rights of the people are eroding- lost to UN's overreaching authority and a flawed report by a government man. Who will be next? Sources: (note that sources can only be found on the Love in a Tin Roof Cottage blog because I am still not able to post links)
an additional note- the homeschooling families in the UK are of course afraid to write about the frustration and violations they are facing while trying to provide their children with a tailored education -fearing they will be targeted. I think this is a legitimate fear based on what I've read. After they did what they could to petition the government for their rights to be upheld- (which didn't help, even though the worth of the Badman report continues to be questioned even in Parliament since it was such a rush job and the funding for it is questionable)- and they are left either being criminalized or registering with an organization hostile to homeschooling and letting these people into their homes. If anyone in the US can write for them in blogs or here at this forum, I can repost it to our blog or otherwise connect the articles to put them in the public eye. Just put a note for me at the top and I'll come find it. Post it on this thread or search for my blog and submit it there. Incidentally, the media is already beginning to try to paint homeschooling as some form of child abuse in the US.
I notice how anti-homeschool people have been trying to paint homeschooling as abuse. I have heard so much "crap." I have been told that I am isolating my children, my daughter is forced to babysit all the time (not), that my children are not allowed friends, that they need contact with "the real world", and so on. Meanwhile, my view of the local public school is that it is abusive and shuts parents out and not much more than a cesspool. They certainly fail to educate. Did I mention that our local schools rank top in the district? What does that say about the rest of the state? Maybe I need to start being more vocal of my opinions of the public schools to the people who feel the need to put down my homeschooling, especially when in front of the children.
If you're going to talk with people, understand the stereotypes. People already think all homeschooling parents hate the public schools, which isn't true. (I guess I should say usually!! there are certainly some districts that are easy to dislike!) This needs to be approached from the direction it's coming from which is: 1. In the UK, this is plainly a human rights violation- taking a minority group and slandering it and then stealing freedoms without cause. 2. The abuse cases widely publicized are almost always either families CPS knows about already (since we have a system already in place to take care of abuse no matter who is involved). Also, they're often really fostering violations. 3. It should be pointed out that if we said "such and such was abused, and they WENT TO PUBLIC SCHOOL" as though that was the cause, there would be neverending streams of articles on "abuse due to public schooling." The reason it's showing up more in the news is that when there's abuse in a homeschool situation, it's an oddity. 4. That homeschoolers aren't all homeschooling due to hatred of the government and/or religious reasons- many are handling children who have special needs- only 38% now homeschool for religious reasons. 5. That religious tolerance does in fact include being tolerant to conservative Christians. For some reason people exclude them from the "tolerance" list. 6. That if parents are "unqualified" to teach up to 12th grade, it doesn't speak well for the schooling they got at the hands of the school system! 7. That socialization concerns are no longer an issue, as recent studies show homeschooled children grow up happy and have great relationships. 8. The "people will tease them" stuff- the proper response is that if they do, obviously they aren't learning as much tolerance at school as the school would like us to think.
Thanks for this informative report. Many US citizens feel that the US is rapidly marching towards a European type of socialism that is masterminded by UN groups. Anyone who thinks that this cannot happen in the US has their head in the sand. We must utilize our votes cautiously, carefully and precisely.
It should be noted that the CRC contains provisions (Article 29 for instance) that also protect parents' rights and those could well be cited by the HSLDA to protect homeschoolers from the state. However, the HSLDA has pretty close ties to political influences that are anti-UN period and so that doesn't happen. It would run counter to those interests to appeal to the provisions of the CRC, make it work for homeschoolers and possibly risk shining a positive light on a UN initiative. IMHO, if the HSLDA were principled in this issue they'd admit their biases and step aside in cases in Sweden and the UK. They're doing more harm then good there by denying the homeschoolers they represent one of the most powerful tools at their disposal. But then I really don't think this is about homeschoolers in Europe, I think this is really about driving membership and agenda in the US. My take probably sounds extremely cynical but the HSLDA is run by people whose ultimate concerns are more about American Christian Reconstructionism then homeschooling and that colours what they do and how they present the issues they get involved in. This shouldn't be surprising and everyone should make sure they view HSLDA reports with a healthy dose of scepticism.
Actually most of the protest in Britain was run by the GLBT community who feared they would lose their children due to bias from the investigators. The move from "citizen protections" to "government rights" is very quickly erased when they can just point to the Rights of the Child legislation and use it to justify whatever they feel like justifying. In this case they said "oh, we aren't PROTECTING the children if we allow homeschooling- what if they don't want to homeschool? We should SAVE them." I don't know a single homeschooled child who would rather be in public school- most of them are escapees..
I do agree with Dawn to some extent on this. I've noted in the other thread on this topic that the US is very different from other countries, and the states (not the feds) have the most influence over education policies. Also, when the UN comes out with a policy of this type, it's usually meant to help the developing world more than the developed world. For example, what can be done to ensure that daughters in an African nation are allowed to attend school and aren't just kept home to fetch water, clean, and cook all day? What can be done to stop parents from refusing school for a son so he can work the land or fight in an army? These issues are far, far more basic than anything we face. Nonetheless, Britain is becoming extreme in some ways, and government powers encroach more and more on the individual. Rarely are those powers used, but they are there. You do hear of stupid cases resulting from an overly zealous bureaucrat - for example, the child who was banned from school as a racist because she complained that no one in her study group would speak English (they were all of Asian extraction). There are idiot bureaucrats everywhere, but Britain does seem to have more than its fair share. Personally, I don't see Washington using measures intended for the Third World to impose on parental rights here. And the US would simply ignore any provisions that try to override national sovereignty. More likely, from the current administration, are laws that attempt to tighten up homeschooling conditions - with annual testing, curriculum requirements, and minimum qualifications for parents. These are the real issues with which to be concerned. PS - One other thing to note: The US has a Constitution; Britain does not. This is a very important difference.
Cornish- Obama is actively taking a federal role in education. In fact, he's already trying to alter the way of funding education to make it where the states have to reach certain standards to get federal funding for their schools. Some states get a lot of federal funding, so they'll jump. One of the stipulations could easily be that all students living in a state must be tested yearly and judged against other states, which would kill autonomous learning. Things are shifting. In addition, the US already SIGNED this legislation back when Clinton was president, and Hillary is a strong proponent. It wasn't ratified because of the destructive effects it would have, but Obama's already committed to ratifying the CRC legislation and says it's "embarrassing" that we haven't. Somalia is the only other country who hasn't signed, and I think it's because they didn't have a government. So in his opinion we look "behind the times" or something, but our signing wouldn't help our country, it would just give the government much more say in child rearing. And the government planned box just doesn't fit every child, as we know. The presumption is that you, as the parent, DON'T have your child's best interests and wishes paramount when you make decisions. The proponents of the CRC argue that people who are against it think they "own their children" and want to keep stifling their wishes, or are brainwashing the poor things in the religion of their parent's choice. They say "have you even considered what the child WANTS?" over and over, as if we steamroll over them. The alternative is of course that the government "owns" the children, because someone needs to make the decisions for people too young to make wise ones. I would rather have someone who loves me making the choices, but many of the people advocating for this legislation were abused in the past or work with abused children and have a hard time trusting that the majority of parents love their children. In their minds the CRC can somehow save the children who are being abused currently. It's a noble thought, but the legislation doesn't make the abuse stop it just exposes the children to more adults who don't love them. Worse, in places like the UK it forces uncomfortable interviews alone with an adult they don't trust. Actually,in the UK it forces these interviews but with the added threat of being carted off to a government school if they "don't answer right." This isn't helping them.
I agree with the intention of the CRC, but the reality is we don't need CRC to be ratified in the U.S. because we already have adequate laws in place. The problem is that just like any contract that is not illegal and you can sign away your rights, CRC being a treaty/contract that will supersede the Constitution Laws and those unspoken inalienable rights we assume to have, like parental rights to take our children to the church of our own choosing, even when they don't want to go to church. That the U.K. may be taking CRC to the extreme is worth observing and considering how it could be used in developed countries like the U.S.
