 |
| Marvin Zuker |
We are all entitled to enjoy our human rights for one simple reason, we are human. We possess human rights regardless of our background, age, gender, sexual orientation, political opinion, religious belief or other status.
Human rights apply to everyone. They are indivisible, and all human rights have equal status. They are interdependent and interrelated. The improvement of one can facilitate the advancement of another.
Historically, Canada has played a major role in the negotiations that led to the adoption of the United Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) on Nov. 20, 1989. It has become the most rapidly ratified core UN Human Rights treaty in history, with Canada ratifying in 1991.
The 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized the equality in dignity and rights of all human beings as well as National Child Day on Nov. 20, 2023.
The views of the child should be a requirement for all official decision-making processes affecting the child, and children must have the possibility to voice their complaints if their right to be heard is violated.
In Ontario, the voice of the child has perpetually been on silent. Who cares what kids think? Are they not supposed to think? But hope may be at the door. For the first time that I can remember, the first time ever, PPM 128 references “students” and “developing and reviewing these policies.” Is this an epiphany by the minister of Education? Wait and see.
During its 95th session in January 2024, the Committee on the Rights of the Child decided to draft its 27th General Comment on children’s rights and to dedicate to access to justice and effective remedies — a process through which violations of human rights can be challenged, without necessarily going to a formal justice system.
The objective is to instigate state parties to undertake appropriate actions to ensure children’s rights to access justice and effective remedies. The committee stated clearly its intention to involve children in the drafting process.
“We have heard loud and clear from parents and teachers alike …” said Mr. Lecce.
Can you ever imagine the Ministry of Education and the province of Ontario actually asking school kids what they believe, what they think, what opinions they have about the state of education in Ontario today? Maybe with that epiphany?
First, we get rid of the Office of the Child Advocate in Ontario. Next, how about turning the clock back on health curriculum in schools to what it was in 2010?
A few starters.
Something positive? Destreaming in Grade 9? Destreaming in Grade 10? Grade 11? Grade 12? No, no, and no to streaming, prejudice, discrimination and yes to segregation? On in the same?
May 17, 1954, now 70 years since Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the historic civil rights decision in the United States. Here the words argued by Thurgood Marshall, the man who became Legal Defense Fund’s first director-counsel and a Supreme Court Justice:
“Where you have seen wrong or inequality or injustice, speak out, because this is your country. This is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on."
The thought of reclassification? Yes, reclassification must be so repulsive to the Ministry of Education. Ask kids why they are in the applied stream.
I dread their answers.
Outside the class, all the power to them.
What was the premier of Ontario thinking when he was quoted as saying “outside the class, all the power to them”? They can do whatever they want? Is this the message to the parents and children of Ontario? Is this the message the parents of Ontario are conveying?
Nothing about banning children of any age from creating a social media account? Nothing about the age at which a child can even own a cellphone?
Perhaps if transparency existed in our school system, statistics would arguably show that kids are more disruptive and more attuned to bullying and violence in Grades 7 to 12, yet we have chosen not to completely ban cellphones for teenagers in these grades. Why not? Makes little sense. At the very ages when these kids are the least positive about their mental health, the very ages where they feel the least safe in school, out come the cellphones.
And because transparency is only a dream, we should look at the rate of absenteeism in our schools and its connection to being in a safe and inclusive environment. Out of sight and out of mind.
I recall from my other life, the times when parents were “charged” with failing to send their kids to school. The patent answer of course, which was probably true, “Well, they walked out the door. I assumed they were off to school.”
And you are waiting to get a call from the school, unless — and maybe — it was on autoplay, forget it. Don’t wait.
This is the first instalment of a series.
Marvin Zuker was a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, where he presided over the small claims, family and criminal courts from 1978 until his retirement in 2016. He is a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto, where he has been teaching education law for 42 years. Zuker is the author and co-author of many books and publications, including The Law is Not for Women and The Law Is (Not) for Kids.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author's firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at Peter.Carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.