for previously archived news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button above)
|This page helpful? Share it!|
The judge was warned by a carer and by 'social' 'services'.
So does this mean 'judges' can be forced into retirement by 'social' 'services'?
Who owns the child?
Anyone who believes there is a safe and foolproof system for caring for and protecting children is out to lunch.
Moral and civic education is returning to the French curriculum. Reintroducing this subject has been brought forward following the dramatic events of January when terrorists shot and killed journalists of satirical weekly paper Charlie Hebdo and shoppers in a Jewish supermarket. The main topics will be "living together, having a critical mind, and fighting against racism".
"The school has a moral function," said the Minister of Education in the wake of January's events. Planned for the 2016 school year, the secular ethics course, wanted by Vincent Peillon, minister of National Education 2012-2014, has been brought forward to September 2015. The events of January makes more urgent the need to "live the values of the Republic".
the return of morality
For Jules Ferry (1832-1893), architect of the non-clerical organisation of public education, morality was a pillar of education. Then, universal morality mingled with the Republican catechism. It was presented in the form of maxims and proverbs within General Sciences. Textbooks had sentences such as "Who insults your country, insults your mother."
Gradually being reduced, ethics teaching survived until the 1960s, but only as the reading and analysis of a fable or tale with "morality" that was written on the blackboard and copied down by students.
After the May '68 wind of freedom had blown, the daily practice of morality in schools was abolished under President Pompidou, to make room for physical education classes. Morality was then replaced by "civic education", the training of the citizen. In 2008, "civic and moral education" came back. In 2011, then education minister Luc Chatel published a circular recommending teachers to impart "moral instruction" in schools, although this was not made a separate subject.
With the Peillon reform, the old "civic education" is replaced by "moral and civic education", to be taught from primary to high school. This will be taught alongside history and geography in a schedule amounting to three hours a week in middle school. Over a student's school education, this will amount to 300 hours.
and the new moral content?
Published by the education ministry in July 2014, "The moral and civic teaching aims to promote the development of an ability to live together." No more dunce's caps, politeness rules and sermons, now the student will be taught
In a textbook written by French educational publisher Nathan for use in GCSE-equivalent classes, many topics are proposed. For example, "female trades, male jobs?", aims at discussing gender stereotypes in professions, presenting the profile of Julien "midwife" and Maud, "crane operator". Other debate topics are on racism, discrimination, equality, sexism, solidarity, and of course, secularism.
This looks horribly like political correctness, rather than ethics and morality. It isn't even sound psychological education.
After the attacks in January, the education minister decided to implement a "great mobilisation of the School for the values of the Republic", being the development of a "route to citizenship" built around the moral and civic education. To beef up the latter and reinforce school authority, the minister also prescribed "understanding and celebration of Republican rituals and the symbols of the Republic (national anthem, flag, currency)." Other measures are also proposed: "development of children's councils at primary school", the "day of secularism" celebrated in all schools, the "week against racism and anti-Semitism", "the week of engagement."
[Translated from an article in Le Figaro.]
Establishment panic as jury probe the meaning of ‘reasonable’
[Context: Vicky Price is being tried for supposedly helping her then MP husband avoid additional points on his driving licence.]
The fossil media is characterising the jury in this case as ‘ignorant’ and lacking IQ for thinking and then asking sharp questions.
However, the more a juror thinks, the less likely they are to accept a simplistic on/off ‘answers’ to complex questions.
The real lack of ‘education’ is that people like fossil media hacks and the ‘judge’ can make errors like this. So many over-‘educated’ people are deluded into imagining that their ‘opinions’ - that is what they believe - just must be correct, and that anyone who believes otherwise must be less intelligent that themselves.
Thank the good lord for the jury system, your only (poor) defence against the arrogance of power.
|You are here: civil liberties news from February 2013 < News < Home|
|latest||abstracts||briefings||information||hearing damage||memory||France zone|
© abelard, 2013, 21 february