Responsibility for the Soul of the Child: The Role of the State and Parents in Determining Religious Upbringing and Education

Taylor, Rachel E.

doi:10.4324/9781003075127-8

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is widely thought that the government has less business regulating parents who educate their children at their own expense than those who send them to state schools, but our framework is intended to map all the relevant normative terrain. Human rights law may indeed protect from state interference parents’ freedom to choose the kind of religious education their children receive, including their freedom to choose schools composed entirely of the children of co-religionists, in effect treating such decisions as ‘private’ (Taylor 2015). For us, that is because the law in question enshrines a non-consequentialist parent-focused right that should be rejected as normatively indefensible.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Morality of School Composition: The Case of Religious Selection

Clayton

Mason

Swift

et al. 2019

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a normative framework for the assessment of education policies and applies it to the issue of schools’ selecting their students on the basis of religious criteria. Such policies can be justified, and challenged, on many different grounds; public debate is not conducted in terms adequate to the task. The authors’ main objectives are to supplement with non-consequentialist considerations a recent, consequentialist, approach to the normative assessment of education policy proposed by Brighouse et al. (2016, 2018), and to apply the proposed framework to issues of school composition and selection. They argue, further, that policies allowing schools to select all their students on the basis of their parents’ religious affiliation cannot be justified.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Morality of School Composition: The Case of Religious Selection

Clayton

Mason

Swift

et al. 2019

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…55 For athough the family courts have in the past found the religious practices of parents and/or the social or secular effects of their religious beliefs to be harmful to children and contrary to their welfare, 56 it is extremely rare for them to find the religious and/or political beliefs of parents to be themselves harmful to children or contrary their best interests. 57 The radicalisation cases, influenced by recent developments in counter-terrorism policy and practice, have changed the family courts' approach to parental religious beliefs. For, as Taylor points out, in some of the radicalisation cases the family courts have found that certain orthodox or illiberal Islamic beliefs (especially those pertaining to the prohibition of homosexuality or differentiated and traditional gender roles 58 ) to be so 'distasteful' and objectionable that they are harmful and dangerous to children.…”

Section: Childhood Radicalisation: Extremism As a 'Freestanding' 34 Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Childhood Radicalisation and Parental Extremism: How Should Family Law Respond? Insights from a Local Authority v X, Y and Z

Ahdash

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Childhood Radicalisation and Parental Extremism: How Should Family Law Respond? Insights from A Local Authority v X, Y and Z

Ahdash¹

2020

The Asian Yearbook of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Local Authority v X, Y and Z (Permission to Withdraw) is a recent case in a series of cases appearing before the family courts, referred to as the radicalisation cases, which deal with concerns related to extremism, radicalisation and terrorism and their impact on children and families. The radicalisation cases represent a significant legal development and a unique legal moment, facilitating an unprecedented interaction between counterterrorism and family law. The cases pose a number of important and serious legal questions: how should the law, and in particular family law, respond to fears that a child is at risk of childhood radicalisation? How should it deal with the terrorist and/or extremists as a parent? A Local Authority v X, Y and Z is an important radicalisation case which addresses these questions. In this article, I examine how the case deals with two issues: a) childhood radicalisation and its treatment by family law as a separate, free-standing harm which can justify compulsory state intervention and b) the question of parental extremism and/or involvement in terrorist related activity. I claim that although the case includes an important and welcome reaffirmation of the principles of family law in the face of worrying recent developments in the counter-terrorist landscape, this reaffirmation remains fragile, arguing that the case represents a missed opportunity for the family courts to critically reflect on and appraise the nature and purpose of family law's interaction with counter-terrorism.

show abstract

Responsibility for the Soul of the Child: The Role of the State and Parents in Determining Religious Upbringing and Education

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

The Political Morality of School Composition: The Case of Religious Selection

The Political Morality of School Composition: The Case of Religious Selection

Childhood Radicalisation and Parental Extremism: How Should Family Law Respond? Insights from a Local Authority v X, Y and Z

Childhood Radicalisation and Parental Extremism: How Should Family Law Respond? Insights from A Local Authority v X, Y and Z

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About