|
|
Post by Cranky on May 12, 2011 23:31:03 GMT -5
Really? Seriously? When I read this I thought it was a joke....but it isn't. ~~~~~~~~~ Judge orders kids to state-run daycare Quebec judge has ordered a family to send their two youngest children to state-run daycare for "socialization." Along with raising concerns about speech delays in one of the children who has hearing problems, Judge Nicole Bernier said the kids, aged three and five, need "socialization" outside of the family. The parents also have two more children, aged seven and nine, who were forced last year to send their once home-schooled kids to public school under a court-order. The most recent compulsory daycare decision was handed down in March and is now being heard by the Quebec Superior Court. Translated from French, Bernier said of the parents: "They have isolated themselves with their children in a very limited view of what constitutes education of a child, wanting to protect children from the external environment they perceive as bad. They have deprived the children of a proper education." The parents have not been charged with negligence or abuse. Their family doctor testified, saying the children were all healthy and well cared-for. The Catholic family is being represented by the Home School Legal Defense Association. "We are seeing a real move against freedom of education in Quebec." said Paul Faris, President of the HSLDA's Canadian branch. "Every parent should be concerned about this." The ruling is making international headlines with homeschooling groups. "I was shocked to see this in Canada. I would have suspected something like this coming out of Sweden and Germany, and their education laws date back to the Third Reich." said Michael Donnelly, HSLDA's Director of International Relations based in Virginia. The group represented a German family threatened with prison time for homeschooling their children. the Romeikes fled their country and were granted political asylum in the US last year. www.torontosun.com/2011/05/10/judge-orders-kids-to-staterun-daycare |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on May 13, 2011 17:01:09 GMT -5
What is the problem? This article is misleading in that there are four children ages 9, 7, 5 and 3. The children were ordered sent to school or day-care depending on their ages. The reason for the ruling is that the parents refused to follow the province's curriculum saying that it contradicted their religious beliefs.
Do you really think Families from Germany should be granted refugee status because they are forced to send their children to school?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 13, 2011 18:51:48 GMT -5
What is the problem? This article is misleading in that there are four children ages 9, 7, 5 and 3. The children were ordered sent to school or day-care depending on their ages. The reason for the ruling is that the parents refused to follow the province's curriculum saying that it contradicted their religious beliefs. Do you really think Families from Germany should be granted refugee status because they are forced to send their children to school? The problem? Should the state have the right to force parents to send 3 and 5 year olds to daycare? Why can't parents home school? It's been done thousands of times before and they do well in post secondary eduction. www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000017.aspI wonder, is this REALLY about home schooling or about language? |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on May 13, 2011 19:48:39 GMT -5
What is the problem? This article is misleading in that there are four children ages 9, 7, 5 and 3. The children were ordered sent to school or day-care depending on their ages. The reason for the ruling is that the parents refused to follow the province's curriculum saying that it contradicted their religious beliefs. Do you really think Families from Germany should be granted refugee status because they are forced to send their children to school? The problem? Should the state have the right to force parents to send 3 and 5 year olds to daycare? Why can't parents home school? It's been done thousands of times before and they do well in post secondary eduction. www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000017.aspI wonder, is this REALLY about home schooling or about language? The only articles I have read on the topic refer to the parents Roman Catholic beliefs, nothing about language. Parents can home school in Quebec, and many do, they only need satisfy the minimum conditions set by the curriculum. The parents I know who home school do so because they do not believe that the standards of the provincial curriculum in the areas of math and science are too lenient. Note that this is unlike the laws in Germany where conditions that permit home schooling are very strict Since you bring up the red herring of language in your post, for fun, allow me to introduce one of my own. Should muslim parents be allowed to home school their children and only teach the Koran and ignore the standard curriculum - ignoring science, mathematics etc.? Or how about neo-nazis? Should they be allowed to teach a curriculum based on the superiority of certain races? Why do we have compulsory education anyways? The state ain't have no right to force me learn'. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 14, 2011 0:05:23 GMT -5
Parents can home school in Quebec, and many do, they only need satisfy the minimum conditions set by the curriculum. The parents I know who home school do so because they do not believe that the standards of the provincial curriculum in the areas of math and science are too lenient. Note that this is unlike the laws in Germany where conditions that permit home schooling are very strict Since you bring up the red herring of language in your post, for fun, allow me to introduce one of my own. Should muslim parents be allowed to home school their children and only teach the Koran and ignore the standard curriculum - ignoring science, mathematics etc.? Or how about neo-nazis? Should they be allowed to teach a curriculum based on the superiority of certain races? Why do we have compulsory education anyways? The state ain't have no right to force me learn'. So let's buy the argument that they are not meeting the minimum requirements for their 7 and 9 year olds. How about the 3 and 5 year olds? What educational curriculum are 3 and 5 year olds suppose to follow other then Pooh Bear? As for the Muslims and the Koran. Well, if the government even remotely attempted to do that on religious grounds, they would be screaming outrage. But not these parents. And I do not have a problem with parents teaching their children the Koran. It's their RIGHT to teach their children to reflect heir values. If not, then what about teaching them the bible? Should we worry that bible teaching can result in fundamentalist Christians? Or only Islam? What about Amish? Should the state run a few volts through them before forcing their 3 and 5 year olds to public schools? If one wants to spin the "socializing" aspect of it. What about the Amish? Or ANY other religious group? Should their children get public school doses to "re balance" them? The foundation of the issue.....do parents have the right to raise their children to reflect their values? Or the nanny state? Do parents have the right to chose how to raise their children? Or the nanny state? Let's not even go to the hypocrisy where if there is any religious issues, the state backs away.  |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on May 14, 2011 10:17:31 GMT -5
Parents can home school in Quebec, and many do, they only need satisfy the minimum conditions set by the curriculum. The parents I know who home school do so because they do not believe that the standards of the provincial curriculum in the areas of math and science are too lenient. Note that this is unlike the laws in Germany where conditions that permit home schooling are very strict Since you bring up the red herring of language in your post, for fun, allow me to introduce one of my own. Should muslim parents be allowed to home school their children and only teach the Koran and ignore the standard curriculum - ignoring science, mathematics etc.? Or how about neo-nazis? Should they be allowed to teach a curriculum based on the superiority of certain races? Why do we have compulsory education anyways? The state ain't have no right to force me learn'. So let's buy the argument that they are not meeting the minimum requirements for their 7 and 9 year olds. How about the 3 and 5 year olds? What educational curriculum are 3 and 5 year olds suppose to follow other then Pooh Bear? As for the Muslims and the Koran. Well, if the government even remotely attempted to do that on religious grounds, they would be screaming outrage. But not these parents. And I do not have a problem with parents teaching their children the Koran. It's their RIGHT to teach their children to reflect heir values. If not, then what about teaching them the bible? Should we worry that bible teaching can result in fundamentalist Christians? Or only Islam? What about Amish? Should the state run a few volts through them before forcing their 3 and 5 year olds to public schools? If one wants to spin the "socializing" aspect of it. What about the Amish? Or ANY other religious group? Should their children get public school doses to "re balance" them? The foundation of the issue.....do parents have the right to raise their children to reflect their values? Or the nanny state? Do parents have the right to chose how to raise their children? Or the nanny state? Let's not even go to the hypocrisy where if there is any religious issues, the state backs away. You sidestepped my question. A parent can provide any sort of religious instruction to their children they wish. Be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Flying Spaghetti Monster etc... There are plenty of religious based schools in Quebec. Not to say there isn't tension. I believe there was a case recently in Montreal where a hasidic school was forced to change as it was felt too many hours were spent on religious teaching. That argument is irrelevant to the case here and not to the point. Details on this case are vague, but it is implied that the parents explicitly refused to follow the curriculum and stated they would not do so in the future. That is the basis of the judges ruling on the 3 and 5 year old. Sending a 5 year old to kindergarten is hardly torture. Now back to my question and what you describe and the foundation of the issue. Of course, parents have the right to raise their children with their values. But they also have a responsibility to their children as well - to provide them with the tools to successfully function in society. If they fail in that responsibility then the state should take over. So if a parent decides that a child should only learn arabic and study the bible (or yiddish and study the torah or russian and study the bible ...) and nothing else than one can argue the parents are neglecting their responsibility to their child. What I find ironic is that if a parent decided, say, that their children should only learn from the koran and nothing else or frivolous refugee claims the Sun would be the first to cry out. As an aside, is is an interesting point about religious communities like the mennonites, etc. No idea what happens in that case. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 14, 2011 12:16:10 GMT -5
As far as I know, religious dogma is not the issue in this case. Nor ANY abuses. Simply an activist judge who demands that a 3 and 5 year old should attend a nanny stat institution because according to her, they are not "socialized" enough. Really? In what way? How about Amish? Or is it that these parents are not a visible minority or religion so anything the state decrees is fine?
As for the argument that 3 and 5 year olds need "tools" to function in a society? At that age GI Joe is more fun then the Koran. Unless of course they make Mohamed dolls.....
The other interesting little side bit is that most children who are home at that age learn the language and customs of their parents origin. Hmmmm.......I wonder if that is the wrong type of "socializing"? After all,if one is socialized correctly, one is integrated in a specific society of of the nanny states choosing.
I don't buy the argument that the nanny state has any "rights" at that age other then to protect from child abuses. The state should NEVER get that kind of power because it crosses over from it's role of protecting us to controlling us.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 14, 2011 13:48:48 GMT -5
As far as I know, religious dogma is not the issue in this case. Nor ANY abuses. Simply an activist judge who demands that a 3 and 5 year old should attend a nanny stat institution because according to her, they are not "socialized" enough. Really? In what way? How about Amish? Or is it that these parents are not a visible minority or religion so anything the state decrees is fine? As for the argument that 3 and 5 year olds need "tools" to function in a society? At that age GI Joe is more fun then the Koran. Unless of course they make Mohamed dolls..... The other interesting little side bit is that most children who are home at that age learn the language and customs of their parents origin. Hmmmm.......I wonder if that is the wrong type of "socializing"? After all,if one is socialized correctly, one is integrated in a specific society of of the nanny states choosing. I don't buy the argument that the nanny state has any "rights" at that age other then to protect from child abuses. The state should NEVER get that kind of power because it crosses over from it's role of protecting us to controlling us. I don't like the situation where a judge orders how parents can raise their own children, but if they were clearly not going to be functional in society for whatever reason, I can accept it.... especially in this case, where one first judge had to order the parents to get proper medical care for one of the older kids last year. The whole judgment is here: www.jugements.qc.ca/php/decision.php?liste=53147723&doc=3D693B65449003C57AEEB54CD0B3FC9950649C707F984A6FA0B24FF5AC50FAB1#_ftn40I recommend anyone who really wants to comment on the specifics to read the whole thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 14, 2011 19:45:39 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, that's the judgement and justifications of her actions. What is it suppose to read other then guilty as sentenced? Or the "gravity" of the situation according to the prosecutor and her? If she was so concerned about their health, which is a red herring since the parents already got medical health, she could of demanded a bi yearly progress report and it would have NOTHING to do with the demands for "socializing" 3 and 5 year olds. Anywho.... The hairs in the back of my neck stand up anytime I hear about the nanny state flexing it's muscle. The justification of "doing it for our own good" is frightening. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 14, 2011 21:52:47 GMT -5
Did you read the court ruling ?
I've read most of it, and to me it's clear that the fact that the two oldest had major issues in terms of communicating and socializing (unable to join in group play) has to be a major factor here - the court is trying to make sure the two younger ones don't have the same issues as their older siblings.
(edit: go and read paragraphs 102 to 108, especially 107. These parents had kids who had needs, and weren't taking care of them.)
The mother clearly isn't equipped (mentally, in terms of training or all-around knowledge) to home-school these kids and they aren't able to interact with society.... I can't say I have a problem with these kids being integrated into the mainstream. "State run daycare" might seem scary to people in Ontario, but in Quebec it's pretty standard and just about everyone is praying for a spot in one, this isn't a rebellious family being forced to send their kids to boot camp , it's negligent parents being forced to raise their kids in some way that will turn them into functional adults.
Of course, we could wait for the kids to turn into dysfunctional adults who commit crimes and get thrown in jail over and over, cause grief to no end to all kinds of people and cost a fortune to society for legal, police and prison costs....
|
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on May 15, 2011 11:06:28 GMT -5
As far as I know, religious dogma is not the issue in this case. Nor ANY abuses. Simply an activist judge who demands that a 3 and 5 year old should attend a nanny stat institution because according to her, they are not "socialized" enough. Really? In what way? How about Amish? Or is it that these parents are not a visible minority or religion so anything the state decrees is fine? As for the argument that 3 and 5 year olds need "tools" to function in a society? At that age GI Joe is more fun then the Koran. Unless of course they make Mohamed dolls..... The other interesting little side bit is that most children who are home at that age learn the language and customs of their parents origin. Hmmmm.......I wonder if that is the wrong type of "socializing"? After all,if one is socialized correctly, one is integrated in a specific society of of the nanny states choosing. I don't buy the argument that the nanny state has any "rights" at that age other then to protect from child abuses. The state should NEVER get that kind of power because it crosses over from it's role of protecting us to controlling us. I don't like the situation where a judge orders how parents can raise their own children, but if they were clearly not going to be functional in society for whatever reason, I can accept it.... especially in this case, where one first judge had to order the parents to get proper medical care for one of the older kids last year. The whole judgment is here: www.jugements.qc.ca/php/decision.php?liste=53147723&doc=3D693B65449003C57AEEB54CD0B3FC9950649C707F984A6FA0B24FF5AC50FAB1#_ftn40I recommend anyone who really wants to comment on the specifics to read the whole thing. Thanks for digging this up. Very interesting read. |
|
