Rights?

Seeds of Freedom. No one can truly be free if, as a child, their education has been authoritarian and repressive, designed to teach them how to submit to the conditions of life as laid down by society rather than adapt these conditions to their own fulfillment. Freedom is partly a state of mind in that it is in the mind that we are truly free or not free. Freedom is also a state of justice in that there can be no freedom for one person and not for another. How we view the freedom of ourselves and others, has to do with our own experiences of freedom in our childhood. If we have not been free as children then we shall never be able to make ourselves truly free as adults. It is astonishing, considering the amount of freedom we have had as children, that we are able to enjoy as much freedom as adults as we do. Adult freedom is guaranteed by the rights provided by the laws of our countries. Children, however, have almost no legal rights under the laws of any country and until they do have rights, all our freedoms are in continual jeopardy.

Ownership and possession. In ancient times everything including rights were about ownership and possession. In feudal times, it started with the king. The king owned or possessed the Dukes, Earls, Counts and Barons. The Dukes, the Earls, the Counts, and the Barons owned the Knights and the Squires and they in turn owned the serfs. Males owned or possessed females and children at the very bottom were owned by their parents. Animals are of course usually considered lower than children, but then animals cannot be owned by children as a rule. Animals, curiously enough, have more rights available to them than children, in most countries, although it is perhaps more difficult for them to claim their rights than it is for children.

When people are owned or possessed, they have little in the way of rights, because their rights are subsumed under the rights of those who own or possess them. We call these sorts of systems of government, paternal, because they assume the owner knows what is best for the one that is owned and will act on their behalf, for their welfare. A dictatorship works well if the dictator is a good and kind person who cares for the welfare of his people. Unfortunately people who want to become dictators are not usually this kind of person, but rather, people who care only for themselves, and are willing to use their own people as dupes and sacrificial lambs.

Should parents possess or own their children? It is an ancient and well loved saying that "a man's home is his castle". This statement implies that what goes on inside a man's house should not be subject to law because the man owns everything inside. It is part of our human rights that this so, but what is in question is, whether the man owns his wife and children, and even the animals in his keep. This site holds that a man does not own his wife, does not own his children and only owns his animals up to a point.

Misconceptions. In his landmark book "Birth Rights" the psychologist Richard Farson clearly laid out in some detail what the rights of children should be. Along with John Holt, Richard Farson has been the main force behind the children's rights movement. Here is a quote from Farson concerning the worries and misunderstandings of people about children's rights:

"When people first hear of children's liberation, they to often think of it in terms of parents who withdraw from their children, treat them in a laissez-faire manner, abandon any regulations or restrictions. Some even fear the reversal of conditions than now prevail, where children would dominate their parents, become demanding and intimidating. Neither concept is intended, and, of course, neither is desirable.

Granting children rights does not mean abandoning all concern for children, nor negating all that an adult has to offer them. It does not mean giving up the possibility of living with them in an orderly and civilized manner. The exercise of adult judgment, wisdom, influence, and persuasion should be enhanced, not impaired. As always, children will become socialized and acculturated mainly through the imitation of adult models.

Children's liberation does not mean a negation of all standards, just double standards. Behavior will still be guided by ethics, morals, beliefs, and laws. Just as adults must abide by regulations, standards and schedules, so children must responsibly abide by these same rules. No parent for example, should feel any more compelled to cater to the capricious whims of a child, than he would to any adult member of the family. After all, the objective of any liberation effort is to reduce the many ways in which people victimize each other."   

Children and rights. Why do children need rights? They need them for the same reason that adults need them. They need them as a guide for society in how they should be treated. If we have good rulers, good bosses, or in general have good people in authority or power over us, we do not need much in the way of rights. The only right we need then is that of having a say in what happens to us. The only need we have is to be able to determine our own course through life in so far as it is not detrimental to others. Who then has power over children? Those who have power over children are parents, guardians, teachers and the very agencies of the government that might have the power to remove them from their parents. We know that birth parents are not always wonderful people who act in the best interest of their children. Indeed some parents could be described as monsters who mistreat their children in ways we can hardly imagine.

1. Children need rights first of all to protect them from those who have power over them; parents, guardians or teachers etc. who can physically or psychologically mistreat them.

2. Children need rights secondly to protect them from over zealous government agencies who may have the right to take them away from those who care about them, who are in fact often their birth parents.

3. Children need rights finally to enable them to have a say in what happens to them. Just as adult have the right to determine their course through life, as living beings so should children.

This implies that children should have the right to be heard in a court of law; that their view at the very least should be taken into consideration by the judge or whoever is making a determination about the future course of their life. These 'child's rights' are needed to guide the judge or person making the decision who otherwise can only be guided by what he or she thinks is right.

How bad can birth parents be? I think it is obvious that children need rights to protect them from people in positions of power over them. Many people, however, might consider that birth parents should be the exception to this by virtue of their maternal and paternal instincts. While there is some truth in this, it can be shown that a large enough number of birth parents have been involved in causing mental and physical cruelty to their own children as to render this point moot. In his book "Birth Rights" Richard Farson provides the horrifying following report:

"Although it is likely that a great many incidents of parental brutality are still not reported, the numbers of children involved are overwhelming. Child abuse is one of the leading causes of child death. Although estimates vary, it can be conservatively stated that in the United States between sixty thousand and two hundred and fifty thousand children are battered, burned, or starved by their parents each year, and some researchers estimate that the number may be as high as three or four million. Several children die each day from such abuse; more die at the hands of their parents than any single disease.

Children are tied, gagged, whipped, systematically exposed to electric shock, made to swallow all kinds of noxious materials such as pepper, dirt, feces, urine, vinegar, alcohol; their skulls and bones have been broken - sometimes repeatedly - their faces and bodies lacerated, their eyes pounded , even gouged out. Children have had their arms cut off; they've been burned with lighted cigarettes, matches, steam pipes, hot irons; beaten with belts and baseball bats, held in ice water, had scalding water poured over their genitals, placed in roadways where autos would run over them, cooked in ovens, thrown off cliffs; they've been bitten, stabbed, shot, drowned, and smothered. the crimes of parents against their children are almost inconceivable.

Studies of child abuse in England by Eustace Chesser showed that between 6 and 7 percent of all children are 'so neglected or ill-treated or become so maladjusted' as to come to the attention of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children....One fact is evident: while the natural parents of the child do not necessarily make the best parents, it is abundantly clear they make the worst ones.

These parents who attack and torture their children are from all classes, all races, all religions all socioeconomic levels. Only one common feature seems to link most of them: parents who batter their children were often themselves battered as children."   

This said, the rights of children is a very vast area to be considered, and to do it any justice is probably well beyond the scope of this essay which is essentially a discussion of learning. There are many things we might eventually hope for in the way of rights for children, but most of them would just be a distraction from the discussion at hand and a huge can of worms. So this site will limit the rest of this section on children's rights in two ways. First it will be limited to those issues that concern learning, and secondly it will be limited to those issues that seem essential to implement life long learning and the actualization of human potential. This site holds that what is needed at this time is some sort of commonsense approach to giving children rights. We propose, that these rights should be such, that people generally believe children are capable of availing those rights, for their own protection and development. We further propose, that these rights should also not aggressively curtail the rights of others, especially parents in the process.

A short history of children's rights in the United Kingdom.    Until very recently children in most countries had no rights at all. In the United Kingdom for instance the child of a hundred years ago had no rights under law. Here is how much of the law gradually changed in the United Kingdom. Much of this was taken from 'The Child the Law and the State' by Nan Berger In the book "Children's Rights".

1808 The Health and Morals of Apprentices Act limited working hours to twelve and made masters responsible for teaching children to read and write.

1819 Robert Owen bullied Robert Peel into setting up a committee to investigate the conditions in cotton mills. The subsequent 1819 Act forbade children under 9 to work in such cotton mills and limited children between 10 and 16 to working thirteen and a half hours a day. This was difficult to enforce as the registration of births was not compulsory till 1837.

1833 Michael Sadler tried to pass a bill to limit the working hours of children below eighteen to ten hours a day. The employers put up such opposition to this that it was not passed. The employers painted a picture of diminishing profits and ruin and persuaded parliament to instead set up a commission to visit factories and see conditions for themselves. Although the employers tried their best to present their factories in a good light, the Act of 1833 was eventually passed. It limited the hours of work to 48 hours per week and forbade night work for those under eighteen. A school attendance clause was added to this act. Under its provisions children were not permitted to work unless they could show, on Monday, that they had a voucher showing they had attended school 2 hours a day the previous week for six of the days.

1844 This Factory Act introduced a half time system. Children could only work half the time and had to spend the other half in school. Children under eighteen could work 10 hours a day for three days, or six hours a day every day and were compelled to attend school for three hours a day every alternate day.

1870-1891 This Act made it compulsory for all children under twelve to attend school and forbade them to work during school hours. The new law was about schooling rather than about work. It was difficult to enforce as education was still being done primarily by charity organizations.

1878 Children aged nine eleven and twelve were refused hearing by two courts (one being Chancery Court) about their religious upbringing in which they opposed their father. The courts ruled in favor of the father. One judge said, "I intend my judgment to leave him [the father] master in his own house".

1908 The Children's act was passed in 1908. Previously only the Chancery Court had any power to interfere with a parent who abused his rights. This new act dealt with a whole range of issues whereby a child could be brought before the court for his or her own good. It also changed the law so that children were not put in jail but rather placed in reformatories. It also set up a special court to deal with juvenile offences. Although the intention of this law was good it has hampered subsequent efforts to give children rights.

1918 A new Children's Act was passed. Here the half time system was finally abolished and very stringent regulations about child work was enforced. This act forced children to be dependent on parents for a much longer period than was previously the case. This act also introduced the new idea of "in loco parentis" where the rights of parents to dispense punishment and have authority over children was transferred to their teachers and other custodial authorities.

1933 The Children and Young Person's Act spelled this "in loco parentis" out. Following a section prohibiting the cruelty to children it stated: "Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the right of any parent, teacher, or other person having lawful control or charge of a child or young person to administer punishment to him."

1948 This act made it the duty of local authorities to receive into care children up to the age of eighteen who were deprived of proper home care. But the court could not take children without the parents permission or keep them if their parents wished them returned.

1963 The Children and Young Person's Act stated that it was the duty of local authorities "to make available such advice, guidance and assistance as may promote the welfare of children by diminishing the need to receive them into care...or bring them before a juvenile court; and any provisions...may include giving assistance in kind or in cash." Neither this law nor the proceeding one made any reference to authorities having to seek the views of the children involved.

1969 The Children and Young Person's Act stated that no child under the age of fourteen could be charged with any offence other than homicide. Children between the ages fourteen and sixteen could only be charged with offences that would result in adult imprisonment and were to be held in a special juvenile court. Other than this the act reinforces the ability of the courts to order children into care. Although this was to be done in the best interests of the child, children were given no say, and were completely at the mercy of those into who's care they were given.

1987 Corporal punishment was finally made illegal in all state schools in the United Kingdom.

1999 The School Standards and Framework Act, brought private schools into line with state schools, where beatings were banned in 1987.

2004 The Government reformed the law on the physical chastisement of children, outlawing the hitting of children which left any lasting physical marks. However, this law is unsafe, unjust and unworkable and fails to give children the equal protection they deserve.

What has really happened? One can see looking at the above, that although the law changed many times the fundamental rights of children did not improve much. Sure they were taken out of the mines and mills, but they were not given better conditions of work and were rather incarcerated in schools where they had no choice as to whether they could go home. Not only that, but although the mill owners and mine owners probably beat them, the owners did not have the right under law to do so. They certainly did not have such rights as teachers did after 1933 and before 1986.

Child liberationists versus child protectionists. These days not many people would deny the importance of having rights to ensure that children are protected from the many dangers of society. There are, however, two very different positions as to what should be done to protect children.

Liberationists believe that children should be able to stand with dignity and, if necessary, to demand their due without having to grovel, please or beg. Liberationist believe children are entitled to the same respect and dignity that is freely offered to adults in liberated democracies. The liberationists believe that children are entitled to the same self-determination that is available to adults. Liberationists pretty much believe that the same rights that protect adults are capable of protecting children.

Protectionists believe that children are incapable of claiming rights and must be protected by the benevolence and compassion of others. They believe that special laws are necessary to compel people to behave toward children in a humane or kind manner. The type of protection they offer provide children with no say in what happens and so what they offer are not really rights. Rather, what they offer is an imposition that certain things be done for the child's protection whether the child wishes it done or not. A right in the view of this site is an option, a choice not something done whether wanted or not. Protectionists of course do not believe children know what they want or need and that others are far better suited to decide their fate.

The rights of children in the United States. Not only are rights of children more lacking in the United States than they are in the United Kingdom but they are also much more diverse in their applicability, in that each separate state controls how much self determination is available to children within that state.

The United Nations 'Convention on the Rights of the Child'. Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989. This document was designed to form a consensus of world opinion on the rights of children that all member United Nations countries would be obliged to ratify. This document is a step in the right direction, but it is not a perfect document. It is produced, in part, here, because it is an important document which has a good chance of being ratified by most member nations of the United Nations. Thus it gives us some idea of what children might hope for in the way of rights in the future. Below are the articles from that document concerning education and learning.

Article 28

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:

(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;

(b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;

(c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;

(d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;

(e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.

2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.

3. States Parties shall promote and encourage international cooperation in matters relating to education, in particular with a view to contributing to the elimination of ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world and facilitating access to scientific and technical knowledge and modern teaching methods. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.

Article 29

1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:

(a) The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

(e) The development of respect for the natural environment.

2. No part of the present article or article 28 shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, subject always to the observance of the principle set forth in paragraph 1 of the present article and to the requirements that the education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State.

Flaws in the above articles. There are two major flaws in this document from the perspective of this site. First and foremost the directive of 28,1,a is not a right. A right is something that people can avail themselves of if they so wish. 28,1,a is a compulsion to be placed on children not a right. 28,1,a would be fine if the word compulsory was dropped and read as follows: "Make primary education available free to all." Secondly 28,2 does not make clear enough the idea that corporal punishment should be done away with.

Who opposes children's rights? In his book Farson explains that in any issue dealing with rights the greatest opposition will come from those who are closest to the problem and includes those who would often be best served by those rights. The slaves did not free themselves, they were freed by right thinking people who took their interests to heart. In minorities and social classes consider how most of the people in those groups fight not for reform but for the status quo. Who opposed women's rights more than the women who already had a lot of power. Farson In "Birth Rights" talks about those who oppose children's rights as follows:

"The greatest resistance to the prospect of children's liberation will predictably come from those who are closest to the problem: parents, teachers, and children themselves. Parents respond, 'My children are liberated enough'; 'Children can't have it both ways, can't be equal to me and expect me to keep working to support them'; 'As far as I'm concerned children already have too much power.' If it sounds familiar it is because one could substitute 'women' or 'wife' for 'children' and have the the very same responses made by husbands to the prospect of woman's liberation. The early days of that movement we characterized by suggestions that women were already dominating, too powerful, and already in control of all the money and resources. Derision and ridicule always come from the groups where interdependence is greatest. Married men against women, Southern whites against blacks, and parents against children.

Paradoxical as it may seem, a good rule of thumb is to expect the greatest resistance from those who stand to benefit most. Just as blacks and women who have not had their consciousness raised are the greatest burdens to those movements, the Uncle Toms and Aunt Toms, we can predict that children will be their own worst enemies in the movement for their liberation."

The need of child rights for learning. This site is not asking for special rights for children. We are simply asking that human rights should be applicable to all humans and not just adult humans. This site holds that in order to learn in a manner consistent with human dignity and in order for children to actualize their full potential, children should have the following rights:

1. Children should have the right to be, and feel safe when with their guardians and teachers. They should have the right not to feel afraid. That discipline should not involve physical punishment or other forms of punishment that invoke fear. Thus all physical punishment should be abolished and all humans should have equal protection against assault as a human right. Physical punishment of children fails to respect children's dignity and physical integrity, and punishment is not viewed as acceptable for any other group of the population.
2. Children should have the right to determine the course of their own life and thus make choices concerning their life. That children should have a say in where they will learn, in when they will learn and with whom they will learn.
3. Children should have the right to decide what is to go into their minds. Children should have the right to decide what they will learn. They should decide what, how much, and how often they will learn.

The need of other child rights. If children were to determine what, where, when and with whom they are to learn, as might be consistent have the above rights in learning, this site concedes that other child rights might have to be looked at in order to allow this to take place. For instance, if parents were unwilling to put up money to enable this kind of learning, then children might need the right to work in order to to pay their way for this kind of learning. This in turn might seem to necessitate a whole book of special laws about acceptable types of work and conditions of work and suitable hours for young people of various ages. Such special laws it seems have been needed in allowing women the right to work. Then again such special laws may not be needed if children could pick and choose their own work, free from influence. The work problem, was never a matter of children working, but a problem of children being exploited by both parents and employers. Certainly child rights in the workplace could be framed so as to protect children from exploitation without denying them the right to work.

We are all humans. Although some adults would have it otherwise, it would be well to remember that children too, are human beings and deserve the same courtesy, the same sensitivity and the same justice under the law as do adults.