On
January 24, 2013, a local newspaper reported that the International Christian
School (ICS) asked its teachers to sign a code of ethics, namely ‘Standards of
Biblical Ethics and Integrity.’ The code requested the teachers to follow the
teachings of the Bible, and the consequences for those who violated the
code may include employment termination.[1]
The event soon stirred up a controversy in our society. Some committee
members of the Equal Opportunities Commission and legislators accused ICS
of discrimination, and used this occasion to advocate the Sexual
Orientation Discrimination Ordinance (SODO). For example, lawmaker Ray, CHAN
Chi-chuen issued a formal letter to the Panel on Education of the Legislative
Council to complain
ICS.[2]
Furthermore, CHONG Yiu-kwong, a lawyer, asserted that the
Education Bureau had the rights to terminate the registration of ICS
if they did not follow the ‘Code of Practice against Discrimination in
Employment on the Ground of Sexual Orientation’ issued by the government.[3] It seems that the survival of ICS and all
other religious schools which insist on their
convictions will be put
under threat.
Parental Rights in Education: Consensus
of International Human Rights Standard
and Local Law
We believe
that when an
education body sets up a code of
conduct in
accordance with its goals and visions, it is not necessarily discrimination. Some critics accuse ICS of violating human rights standard as if they are experts on human rights.
However, they tend to quote
from the international human rights documents selectively.
In fact, freedom of education and parental rights in education are the consensus
of international human rights standard and local law. The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), and the bill
of human rights in Hong Kong are all unequivocally affirming the parents’
rights to choose the kind of education for their
children in
accordance with their moral and religious convictions.
Ø The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, Article 26(3):
“Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”
“Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”
Ø International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 13(3):
“The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians…to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”
“The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians…to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”
Ø International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, Article 18(4):
“The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”
“The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”
Ø European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR), Protocol 1, Article 2:
“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
Ø American Convention on
Human Rights, Article 12(4):
“Parents or guardians, as the case may be, have the right to provide for the religious and moral education of their children that is in accord with their own convictions.”
“Parents or guardians, as the case may be, have the right to provide for the religious and moral education of their children that is in accord with their own convictions.”
Ø Convention on the Rights
of the Child, Article 14(2):
“States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.”
“States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.”
Ø CAP 383 HONG KONG BILL OF
RIGHTS ORDINANCE, Article 15(4):
“The liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions shall be respected.”
“The liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions shall be respected.”
Reflection on Freedom of Education and Parental Rights in Education
There
are a few points worthy of notice. Firstly, this right is included in both the
ICESCR and the ICCPR
which were promulgated in 1966 . At that time there were different interpretations of the scope of
the human rights among the countries. That’s why the two covenants needed to be drafted and signed by the state parties separately. Some countries favored economic,
social and cultural rights; other countries favored civil and political rights.
Therefore, the contents of the two international covenants are in fact quite
different and do not have much overlap. However, the parental rights in education have been included in both covenants. This shows the importance
and universality of this kind of rights. For those who support the ICCPR,
they know that if dictators want to control the people’s mind, one of the most
important tasks is to control education. The history of the communist regimes amply demonstrates this point. Therefore the protection of the parental rights
in education is indeed
an important civil and political right which helps us resist and prevent dictatorship. Of course, education
rights are also very important for the development of economy, society and
culture.
Secondly,
these rights are upheld by the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. Moreover, the
existence and
flourishing of the International Christian School as a private institution show that there
are a lot of parents who deliberately choose the kind
of religious and moral education provided by ICS. So it is hard to understand why the Education Bureau apparently wants to deprive these parents of their freedom to choose the kind of religious and moral education suitable for their children. Are they really
showing respect for the rights and “liberty
of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in
conformity with their own convictions”? In fact the Code of Practice against Discrimination
in Employment on the Ground of Sexual Orientation is only a guideline which is not
legally enforceable, but the CAP 383 Hong Kong Bill Of Rights Ordinance, article 15(4) is a law of our land. Why did the Education Bureau use the former to put pressure on ICS, but turn a blind eye to the latter?
Thirdly,
during the “anti-national education” controversy, some people cited parental
rights in education to oppose the national education, including the
lawyer CHONG Yiu-kwong mentioned above. He pointed out that “the international human rights covenant shows that parents have the rights to provide for the
religious and moral education of their children in accordance with
their own convictions.” Then he cited some covenants’ contents which we have
mentioned above. He concluded: “When the government wants to implement any moral education, they should
respect the parents’ rights to choose”. He also used the sex
education in British
secondary schools as an example: “The parents have the
rights to opt out from the elective part of the sex education curriculum. It
shows that the British
parents can still choose whether to accept a certain
part of moral education for their children according to their own faiths.”[4]
Some Court Cases for Reference
International
human rights covenants and local law are all affirming parents’
or legal guardians’ rights to ensure the conformity of the religious
and moral education of their children with their own faiths. Therefore,
it is not discrimination for an education body to provide a kind of education in accordance
with its goals and visions which also match the wishes of the parents. Moreover, it preserves the diversity of education,
and at the same time prevents the government from imposing some ideology
on the whole
society. There are some court cases which show that religious freedom should be respected even if it seems to conflict
with the demands of equality. For example, in the case Caldwell et. al. and Stuart et.
al., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 603, the verdict of the Supreme Court of Canada pointed
out that “whether it would be regarded as a discrimination in respect of employment,
mainly depending on whether the reason for the discrimination matched with a
bona fide occupational qualification or not”.[5]
In this case, a Catholic school refused to renew a contract for a teacher who
had married a divorced man. The court said it is ‘a bona fide
occupational qualification’ for the teacher of the Catholic
school to comply
with the Catholic doctrines in her
private life. So in this case, since the appellant had violated the church
doctrines, not renewing
her contract cannot be regarded as discrimination.
We may not agree with the Catholics’ standard here. However, the
implication of the case is that when a religious school hires a
teacher, its religious convictions can be taken into account when we determine what is the ‘bona fide occupational qualification’ in question. To do so is not discrimination.
In
addition, the Supreme Court of Canada affirms the autonomy of an education
body again in 2001, and the case is somewhat similar to the
ICS event. At that time, a private Christian University, namely Trinity Western
University (TWU), established a teacher training program. TWU also had some Community
Standards which needed
to be signed by all its students,
faculty and staff. Homosexual behavior was included in the prohibition list.
The British Columbia College of Teachers argued that since the program
involved discriminatory practices, it would not recognize the professional teaching
qualification of the graduates of this program. They took the dispute to the
court, and finally TWU won the case: “Even though the requirement that students
and faculty adopt the Community Standards creates unfavourable differential
treatment since it would probably prevent homosexual students and faculty from
applying, one must consider the true nature of the undertaking and the context
in which this occurs”.[6]
Of
course, there are complicated factors which need to be considered in
each case. However, we
have reasons to disagree with those who absolutize anti-discrimination at the expense of other human rights. The
judgment just mentioned above states clearly: “Consideration of human rights values
in these circumstances encompasses consideration of the place of private
institutions in our society and the reconciling of competing rights and values.
Freedom of religion, conscience and association coexist with the right to be
free of discrimination based on sexual orientation”. [7]
We believe that this is a more balanced approach.
Conclusion
As
a result, we object to
the move to stigmatize religious faith as
discrimination. Furthermore, we object to the use of the governmental or legal power to curb freedom of religion, freedom of education
and the parental rights to ensure the conformity of religious and
moral education of their children with their own convictions, which are all endorsed
by the international human rights covenants. We call on the Education Bureau and
the government officials to respect these international human rights possessed by every Hong Kong citizen. They should also respect the autonomy of an education body to set up its own moral code according to its vision and the parents’
wishes.
Why did some pro-gay media and the homosexual activists wage an attack on ICS? Possibly they are using
this occasion to advocate the necessity of SODO.
However, what the case really tells us is that SODO can be used to
suppress freedom of religion, freedom of education and the parental rights in education.
Once the ordinance is enacted, the education rights of religious schools and
the parents who support the schools will be deprived, and their freedom to refuse
homosexual brainwashing “education” for their
children will sooner
or later be taken away too.
[8]
[6] Trinity
Western University retrieved on 2014-02-18 .
Paragraphs #34-35.
[8] 關於這點台灣的經驗很值得借鏡，參關啟文，〈台灣同運如何推行同性戀洗腦教育〉，載於「關懷．啟示．文化」──關啟文個人網頁。取自：http://kwankaiman.blogspot.hk/2012/12/blog-post_5.html，最後瀏覽日期：2014年2月26日。
