Belgian Homeschooling Nightmare

[BHS]

Since all of modern life can be linked to one Monty Python skit or another, here's the link to the Dennis Moore episode from Season 3. The appropriate link, at the top of the page, is for the skit entitled "Prejudice".

While we in Canada wile away our time worrying that the government is listening in on each and every one of our dopey phone conversations, the much more nuanced and worldy Belgian authorities have found the means to prove that they are several steps further down the road to Big Brother totalitarianism than their New World sister nation. (I've always thought of Canada and Belgiam carrying a similar global profile re: economy, military, unwarranted overestimation of it's own global influence and importance, etc.).

According to this article it is against the law to refuse to allow the Government of Belgium access to your children's mind for the purposes of political indoctrination. Refusal can result in imprisonment.

You may be shocked to learn that the source of the political thinking behind this case is UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child. Or not, depending on what level of respect you give to anything that emerges from Turtle Bay. Since we are of course signatories to said convention (under Mulroney, no less), and since we view Euro legalistic proclivities as being preferrable to imitating for the dreaded Americans (who are not signatories to the said convention, natch), the case in point is no doubt a foreshadowing of the future of child education in Canada.

[Riverwind]

According to this article it is against the law to refuse to allow the Government of Belgium access to your children's mind for the purposes of political indoctrination. Refusal can result in imprisonment.

Will you defend the right of families like the Kahdrs to home school their kids even if that means their kids will be more likely to grow up and become terrorists?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

The same paragraph caught my eye too...

it is against the law to refuse to allow the Government of Belgium access to your children's mind for the purposes of political indoctrination.

I don't recall reading those words in the article. More like 'Home schooling is illegal'. Quite the interpretation, there, BHS. Not entirely wrong, but your 'political indoctrination' twist makes it seem like Belgium could be compared to Cambodia under Pol Pot, or Russia under Stalin at the height of 'The Terror'.

I take it you don't think education should be mandatory?

[BHS]

According to this article it is against the law to refuse to allow the Government of Belgium access to your children's mind for the purposes of political indoctrination. Refusal can result in imprisonment.

Will you defend the right of families like the Kahdrs to home school their kids even if that means their kids will be more likely to grow up and become terrorists?

Are you suggesting there are enough families like the Kadhrs in Canada for your question to be relevant to a discussion of general education principles? And if so, isn't the problem that they are in Canada to begin with, and not how their children are being educated?

[BHS]

I don't recall reading those words in the article. More like 'Home schooling is illegal'. Quite the interpretation, there, BHS. Not entirely wrong, but your 'political indoctrination' twist makes it seem like Belgium could be compared to Cambodia under Pol Pot, or Russia under Stalin at the height of 'The Terror'.

I take it you don't think education should be mandatory?

What an odd conclusion to arrive at.

The article quite clearly expresses that home schooling is not illegal in Belgiam. What is illegal is the refusal to teach your children a government sanctioned program of "tolerance" which is expressly not defined. This is an open invitation to political indoctrination on the flimsiest of pretexts.

I think education should be manditory the way that eating is manditory - that is, something that is of such obvious benefit to the recipient that only it's exclusion becomes an issue. However, there is a difference between a public education that is useful in a basic, functional sense, and a public education that veers into the realm of parental oversight. Children should receive their moral direction from their families and not from the state.

[Riverwind]

Are you suggesting there are enough families like the Kadhrs in Canada for your question to be relevant to a discussion of general education principles? And if so, isn't the problem that they are in Canada to begin with, and not how their children are being educated?

I was trying to point out that there are circumstances where the 'values' being instilled by parents are incompatible with the 'values' of society as a whole. There are entire threads on this forum devoted to the need to better assimilate immigrants into mainstream Canadian society. In other words, you should not dismiss the public school system as an exercise in mind control - this 'indoctrination' does have a number of positive, perhaps, essential aspects to it. Furthermore, kids are only in school 6-8 hour a day 5 days a week. Parents have lots of time to 'indoctrinate' their children in the way they see fit if they are so inclined so you cannot argue that the mandatory public education prevents parents from teaching their children.

[BHS]

I was trying to point out that there are circumstances where the 'values' being instilled by parents are incompatible with the 'values' of society as a whole. There are entire threads on this forum devoted to the need to better assimilate immigrants into mainstream Canadian society. In other words, you should not dismiss the public school system as an exercise in mind control - this 'indoctrination' does have a number of positive, perhaps, essential aspects to it. Furthermore, kids are only in school 6-8 hour a day 5 days a week. Parents have lots of time to 'indoctrinate' their children in the way they see fit if they are so inclined so you cannot argue that the mandatory public education prevents parents from teaching their children.

You're missing the point entirely. As the article makes quite clear, a homeschooling parent who chooses to instill a set of moral guidelines in their children, which is contrary to what a government official feels is an appropriate moral (political) indoctrination, is breaking the law and liable to end up in jail. The next rung down this ladder into the abyss is of course a parent being punished (and, let's not forget, possibly imprisoned) for contradicting the rubbish his child has brought home from a public school:

"Dear Mr. Plegm,

It has come to our attention that you've been teaching your children that terrorism is wrong in all cases. This contravenes our current policy of teaching the children that "terrorism" is a loaded word, and to try to see the world from the terrorists' viewpoint. It is only when our children can see that blowing up a pizzaria full of despicable Jews is in fact an honourable act of self defence, that we can make peace with our own blood besotted past.

If you continue to contradict our official moral guidlines on this and whichever other matters we've decided are relevant this week, we will be contacting the Child Welfare authorites, and asking for a review of your parental fitness. Because clearly, your refusal to teach appropriate tolerance to your children is nothing short of child abuse.

Sincerely,

Oberkinderfuhrer Blahblahblah"

Because really, when a government official can come into your home, interrogate your children, and have you arrested because they gave the wrong answers, how far are you from having the Gestapo demand your papers on the street?

[Riverwind]

Because really, when a government official can come into your home, interrogate your children, and have you arrested because they gave the wrong answers, how far are you from having the Gestapo demand your papers on the street?

Sorry, I misunderstood the point. On that issue, I agree the actions of the Belgian gov't are absurd. I personally have no patience for blatant propaganda in schools. Recently the BC gov't agreed to add a 'gay issues' course in Grade 12. I was appalled even though I am a strong supporter of gay rights. Schools should be places where children are taught to detect propaganda, analyze it, find their own facts and then make up their minds.

[spudbuddy]

Because really, when a government official can come into your home, interrogate your children, and have you arrested because they gave the wrong answers, how far are you from having the Gestapo demand your papers on the street?

Sorry, I misunderstood the point. On that issue, I agree the actions of the Belgian gov't are absurd. I personally have no patience for blatant propaganda in schools. Recently the BC gov't agreed to add a 'gay issues' course in Grade 12. I was appalled even though I am a strong supporter of gay rights. Schools should be places where children are taught to detect propaganda, analyze it, find their own facts and then make up their minds.

Might be nice for the kids to get a bit of background whilst perusing the works of Oscar Wilde.

As I recall, at that paricular age - homophobia liberally mixed with housebrand teenaged angst

was all the rage (and so much wasted effort, really.)

Governments have been known to be absurd. (You just noticed?)

In spite of the approaching debacle of globalized trivial pursuit, a board game played entirely by

neocons - even THEY don't have the power or stupidity to engage us in the historically

glorified insanity otherwise known as war -

Since the world was young, parents have taken on the chore of socializing their

kids as they see fit (in spite of whatever forces stand in their way.)

[BHS]

Might be nice for the kids to get a bit of background whilst perusing the works of Oscar Wilde.

As I recall, at that paricular age - homophobia liberally mixed with housebrand teenaged angst

was all the rage (and so much wasted effort, really.)

Governments have been known to be absurd. (You just noticed?)

In spite of the approaching debacle of globalized trivial pursuit, a board game played entirely by

neocons - even THEY don't have the power or stupidity to engage us in the historically

glorified insanity otherwise known as war -

Since the world was young, parents have taken on the chore of socializing their

kids as they see fit (in spite of whatever forces stand in their way.)

I can't follow anthing you've written here. Quit typing in code.

[Machinations]

I think education should be manditory the way that eating is manditory - that is, something that is of such obvious benefit to the recipient that only it's exclusion becomes an issue. However, there is a difference between a public education that is useful in a basic, functional sense, and a public education that veers into the realm of parental oversight. Children should receive their moral direction from their families and not from the state.

Yes, because the average parent is *far" more capable of delivering a balanced education than the state.

Let's face facts - homeschoolers are homeschooled usually because of the parents religious attitudes. These parents wish to have the right to indoctrinate their children in various, often anti-societal belief systems. Furthermore, most parents are so uninvolved with their childrens lives that they tend to have the television set as their constant companion. I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching, say 'killing is wrong' in public schools - do you? It would help if you could give an idea exactly what kind of information you object to.

Sorry, but no. Public education remains the best system, regardless of what the morality police tell you.

You suggest people may be arrested for teaching their children things which contradict what the state has told them. This can happen already, in Canada - preaching hatred and inciting violence is illegal, and a savvy lawyer can easily connect the dots between a homophobic, closed upbringing and a hate crime perpetuated later in that individuals life.

[Charles Anthony]

Public education remains the best system,

to guarantee that teachers have jobs and that parents have cheap day-care.

What else does public education manage to do?

[Machinations]

Public education remains the best system,

to guarantee that teachers have jobs and that parents have cheap day-care.

What else does public education manage to do?

Maintain a set of standards by which our children can be given a balanced education. The system provides for intervention at an early age by analysis of a child's grades and attendance. Children are given opportunites when needed to help in certain areas, furthering their intellectual development. This ultimately contributes to society as a whole by maintaining a standard - if you will, of education and knowledge. It was not long ago that many adults were illiterate in Canada, unless part of the economic elite.

Also worth nothing is that often, it is a teacher who first notices signs of abuse by a parent or relation.

Homeschooling looks good on paper, sadly most parents are more interested in sheltering their child from what they see as 'dangerous' or 'immoral' influences in the world. By doing this, the parents often engender what they attempt to avoid - the inclination of the child to seek out and experiment with actually dangerous or immoral activites.

I am for strengthening the system, making it more like France, with paid University for the top students. The system is dangerously underfunded and, truth be told, teachers are getting too much - as are just about all civil servants in this country. We need a drastic reduction in the size of the civil service - but I would hire more teachers, and pay them less after 20 years, when under our current system they are making, say, 100,000$ a year as a high school teacher. This scale needs to be cut back, and more resources introduced for children, particularly an emphasis on language (not just English and French), math and emergine technologies.

Edit: If we had a plebiscite today on reducing politicans pay, is there any wonder what the results would be? Easily 95%+ of Canadians want to see the mandatory pensions afforded MPs after 4 years - and collectable before 65 - removed, and its not a stretch to imagine they feel the pay is too much considering how little work they actually do. However - without sudden active involvement by Canadians in government we're going to continue to be sucked dry - we're some of the most apathetic people in terms of democratic involvement worldwide.

[BHS]

I think education should be manditory the way that eating is manditory - that is, something that is of such obvious benefit to the recipient that only it's exclusion becomes an issue. However, there is a difference between a public education that is useful in a basic, functional sense, and a public education that veers into the realm of parental oversight. Children should receive their moral direction from their families and not from the state.

Yes, because the average parent is *far" more capable of delivering a balanced education than the state.

Let's face facts - homeschoolers are homeschooled usually because of the parents religious attitudes. These parents wish to have the right to indoctrinate their children in various, often anti-societal belief systems. Furthermore, most parents are so uninvolved with their childrens lives that they tend to have the television set as their constant companion. I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching, say 'killing is wrong' in public schools - do you? It would help if you could give an idea exactly what kind of information you object to.

Sorry, but no. Public education remains the best system, regardless of what the morality police tell you.

You seem to have missed the point of this thread. We aren't discussing the merits of homeschooling or the reasons why a person should choose to homeschool their children. The point is that in Belgium the state has abbrogated the right to interrogate homeschooled children and to throw their parents in jail if they've been taught something that doesn't jibe with what the state feels is appropriate. The test for appropriateness is apparently the gut instinct of the interrogator. That you've tried to turn this thread into a discussion of "morality police" when the intitial topic is the actual police is interesting.

You suggest people may be arrested for teaching their children things which contradict what the state has told them. This can happen already, in Canada - preaching hatred and inciting violence is illegal, and a savvy lawyer can easily connect the dots between a homophobic, closed upbringing and a hate crime perpetuated later in that individuals life.

"Preaching" hate speech is a public act - it's a good deal different than saying something privately at home. I don't condone teaching hatred to children, but the test for whether a particular notion is "hateful" or not should be something more that a bureaucrat's impression of what children have been taught.

Inciting violence is illegal almost everywhere, but unless you're making your kids joust in your livingroom I don't see how it applies.

Your last sentence is really intriguing. Forget the concept of judge-made law - you've gone one further and suggested that public policies should be written to accomodate whatever legal arguments savvy lawyers can come up with to convince a jury (because I doubt a judge will be convinced without something more substantial than a lawyer's argument re: the psychology of hate crimes). Bravo.

[Machinations]

You seem to have missed the point of this thread. We aren't discussing the merits of homeschooling or the reasons why a person should choose to homeschool their children. The point is that in Belgium the state has abbrogated the right to interrogate homeschooled children and to throw their parents in jail if they've been taught something that doesn't jibe with what the state feels is appropriate. The test for appropriateness is apparently the gut instinct of the interrogator. That you've tried to turn this thread into a discussion of "morality police" when the intitial topic is the actual police is interesting.

What I am asking, I guess I should have spelled out. What exactly could they be arrested for? You make vague references to ideas 'against the State' - but you fail to give any examples. If I homeschooled my child and taught him to, say, hate Britain and to join the IRA - would that not be a crime here? Please give me an idea of what exactly it is these children will be taught that their parents fear arrest.

"Preaching" hate speech is a public act - it's a good deal different than saying something privately at home. I don't condone teaching hatred to children, but the test for whether a particular notion is "hateful" or not should be something more that a bureaucrat's impression of what children have been taught.

Inciting violence is illegal almost everywhere, but unless you're making your kids joust in your livingroom I don't see how it applies.

I think the argument could be made that since your children are a captive audience, and you a role model, privately espousing racist views could be 'spreading' hatred - 'preaching' is not the necessary legalese, if you will. In fact, I'm quite sure a childrens aid society would take said children from the home - but please, correct me if I am wrong.

Your last sentence is really intriguing. Forget the concept of judge-made law - you've gone one further and suggested that public policies should be written to accomodate whatever legal arguments savvy lawyers can come up with to convince a jury (because I doubt a judge will be convinced without something more substantial than a lawyer's argument re: the psychology of hate crimes). Bravo.

The entire purpose of lawyers is to figure out the best way to exploit the law for their clients. Legislation MUST be composed so that clever people cannot weasel their way into unintended applications of the law. Because, yes, believe it or not, lawyers have an impact on judges legal thinking. Hey, they were lawyers too once, right?

Something more substantial? Try Psych 101. I could haul a hundred psych PhD's in the door to make that case - its not far fetched my friend.

[BHS]

machinations:

I worked on a reply to your post all afternoon (on and off) and when I previewed what I had written the forum ate my post. I'll have to try again later.