2022-12-23
"The High Court has ruled today that the Welsh Government’s controversial plans to force LGBTQ+ teaching on all children from the age of 3 upwards is lawful and does not conflict with parental rights"
What part of this statement do we not understand?
What are the implications?
Parents in the UK have always been free to bring up our children as we see fit.
The presumption of English (and now therefore Welsh) freedom is that the State on behalf of the Crown will not interfere with the conduct of its subjects except (a) in exceptional circumstances and (b) with due authorisation, as for instance: under a court order.
Children are too young to be treated as adults, and so children are subject to the care of their parents (or failing that, of their guardians). So in the case of children it is the parent (or guardian) who carries the responsibility under the law on their children's behalf for their behaviour, and therefore the parent/guardian needs the appropriate commensurate control over their charges' behaviour and upbringing.
Indeed, schools have traditionally acted "in loco parentis" - a clear acknowledgement that they act on behalf of the parents whilst the children are in school. Indeed the Latin form of this notion testifies to the ancient establishment of this legal principle. It is not the school that carries the legal responsibility for the child's misbehaviour subsequent to his/her lessons.
" ... but Mrs Justice Steyn held that: 'the case law and texts relied upon by the claimants do not support the existence of a fundamental common law right of excusal. I reject the contention that such a right exists.'
"Further, she found that Article 2 of the First Protocol to the European Convention of Human Rights, which obliges the state to respect the right of parents 'to ensure such education and teaching [is] in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions', did not protect parental rights in the field of controversial sex education"
The latter is a quite extraordinary statement which appears to rely on the assumption that sexual behaviour has nothing to do with religious or philosophical belief. "Absurd" is perhaps the kindest word for this decision.
If her ruling stands then this is a sure-fire recipe for parents clashing with teachers, and children enduring conflicting teachings at school and in the home. The scope for creating misunderstandings and confusion in their impressionable minds, not to mention needless strife and worry for their parents, is obvious.
In all reasonableness, schools must back off insisting on such contentious curricula.
Mrs Justice Steyn clearly errs in both common law and natural justice. The first principle of Common Law is that the State will not interfere with the conduct of its citizens except in exceptional circumstances and as authorised by a court. Therefore in the absence (which she asserts) of case law, the presumption of control of and responsibility for the child must lie with the parent, not with the State.
There is good reason why It has always been thus and why this is explicitly enshrined in the Human Rights laws.
I am no lawyer, just a commoner. Whilst ignorance of the law is no excuse, the corollary is that the law must be reasonable and comprehensible.
" ... not only do we parents not have rights, but they were never there to begin with. The team is preparing the appeal, the higher the court the louder the message. This is not a loss; this is another level of exposure"
Quite so. This ruling must be overturned.
