Saturday, 28 November 2009

Choice that is no choice

Every day, in hundreds of ways, we all make choices.

To get up or lie in bed, what to wear if we choose to get up, whether to turn the heating on or off, what to eat for breakfast, whether or not to have breakfast....

Thousands of choices, not hundreds.

Some choices are no choices. I choose not to hurt my children. I choose to listen to my children. I choose to treat them with respect and consider what they say as worthy (as, indeed, what they say is worthy).

Often I will act upon what they say. They are privy to my thinking about what they choose to tell me and we share a lot of information and knowledge.

Choice should have a choice.

Choice should not be made under duress because choice made under duress is no choice.

Choice should imply that one can limit or, in fact, choose not to choose to choose.

A man who leaps out of a bush and demands that you hand over your cash or he will shoot your dog leaves you with no choice.

' The common English usage of the word "defeasance" has also become acceptable in law, referring to a contract that is susceptible to being declared void as in "immoral contracts are susceptible to defeasance."' (Duhaime)

Immoral contracts are susceptible to being declared void.

Immoral contracts are ones in which we have no choice. Immoral contracts stem from a misunderstanding and misapplication of the word choice, and from a source which sees people as counters on a game board.

A choice which is no choice is force.

Coercion.

The review written up by Badman and so enthusiastically embraced by Balls has advocated 'choice' for no one. Children caught up in this conspiracy of choice are sold a piece of swampland in Florida. They are offered a voice which implies choice. They are told they will be listened to. They are not told that they will be listened to and then ignored.

It is an immoral system based on immoral targets.

It contravenes so many of the United Nations Rights of the Child that Britain has signed up to.

"States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention."

Article 5
http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/uncrc.asp

From the same:

"1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."

Article 14

Naturally, we can be respected in that the government can tell us that we are respected, and yet they can behave as if we are anything but respected. I can hear what you say but I don't have to act upon what you say or change my mind about what I think you might need or want or deserve. However, when we treat a minority group like home educators differently to any other group in society, then we are being flushed out into a vast sea of moral effluent. We are going wrong. We are taking heed of our prejudices and our misconceptions to affect other people's lives and that is a serious undertaking.

"What is not acceptable is arbitrary application of law so that some people end up being treated more badly than others where objectively the circumstances do not warrant such treatment."

European Convention on Human Rights, Article 14, from the book Unlocking Human Rights, page 385

Home educators are subject to the arbitrary application of law. We are being treated worse than those people who school their children. As home educating families, we are subject to more intrusion and intervention than any schoolchild's family has to put up with.

Lastly, the circumstances do not warrant such treatment.

To choose to implement laws that place a blameless and caring group of parents in a no-win and intolerable situation is the work of evil. The circumstances do not warrant it. Home educating parents do not warrant it. Home educating children do not warrant it.

Home educators may be forced to undergo a series of malevolent changes in the laws that affect them. They will have no choice but to obey these laws unless they realise that, to bend to accommodate a bad law, goes against their very nature.

Home educators will still have a choice.

To obey a tyrannical law or not.

To choose or not to choose, that is the question.

2 comments:

  1. Kelly, have I told you recently just how much your support and brilliant arguments mean to so many of us over in this once-green and pleasant land.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete