B1313 - Educational Indoctrination Act 2018 (Second Reading)

Watch
This discussion is closed.
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
B1313 - Educational Indoctrination Act 2018 (Second Reading), TSR Government



A

BILL

TO

prevent the ‘extremist’ indoctrination of pupils in educational institutions.



BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1 - Definitions
(1) Where referenced in this Act, the following words are to be defined as follows:-
(a) as defined by the Education Act 1996:
(i) ‘School’ shall refer to any educational institution which is simultaneously outside of the further education and higher education sector, yet remains a institution with provisions to provide any combination of primary, and/or secondary education.
(ii) ‘Pupil’ shall refer to any person and/or entity to whom provisions for education are made;
(b) for the sole purpose of this Act:-
(i) ‘Educational institution’ shall refer to an institution or establishment at which active provisions are made for education, regardless of the age of those to whom said education provisions have been made.
(ii) ‘Educational staff’ shall refer to those employed, through any mechanism, by schools or educational institutions; this includes but is not limited to: teachers; volunteers; entities/persons on the governing body; representatives of the local education authority; inspectors; management staff; receptionists; first aids; and, those in ‘temporary employment’, id est, those requested, or by their own accord desire, to attend school for the purpose of education, whether or not as an external speaker, teacher or observer.
(iii) ‘Indoctrination’ shall, at bare minimum, refer to the imbuement and inculcation of principles, opinions, points of view, ideals, attitudes, cognitive strategies or professional methodologies that have indisputable and explicit links to proscribed organisations.
(iv) ‘Fundamental British values’, as specified by the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills, are to include democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith.
(v) ‘Data protection regulations’ shall refer to primary legislation, statutory instruments, and other regulations that make provisions pertaining to the processing of personal data, make provisions for the regulation of the processing of information relating to individuals, and make provisions in connection with the Information Commissioner’s functions under certain regulations relating to information; where referenced in this Act, ‘data protection regulations’ are to primarily refer to the Data Protection Act 1998 and, on enactment, the Data Protection Act 2018/2019.

2 - Existing legislation
(1) Sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act of 1996 shall remain unaffected.
(2) Where there are contradictions between the Education Act of 1996 and the Educational Indoctrination Act of 2018, the latter is to take precedence.

3 - Indoctrination
(1) The local education authority, governing body, head teacher and all members of staff in their individual capacity, are duly obliged to:-
(a) forbid the uncritical pursuit of partisan principles, opinions, points of view, ideals, attitudes, cognitive strategies or professional methodologies by educational staff that have indisputable and explicit links to proscribed organisation and are in direct contradiction to fundamental British values;
(b) forbid the uncritical promotion of partisan principles, opinions, points of view, ideals, attitudes, cognitive strategies or professional methodologies in the teaching of any subject in the school that have indisputable and explicit links to proscribed organisation and are in direct contradiction to fundamental British values;


4 - Proscribed groups or organisations
(1) Proscribed groups or organisations shall refer to any individual, group, organisation or entity proscribed by Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department under section 3 of the Terrorism Act of 2000.
(2) Any organisation proscribed by Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department is said to have:-
(a) committed or participated in acts of terrorism;
(b) prepared for terrorism;
(c) promoted, encourages or unlawfully glorified terrorism;
(d) otherwise concerned themselves with terrorism.

5 - Action
(1) On notification of an act of indoctrination with indisputable and explicit links to proscribed groups or organisations, where said act goes against fundamental British values and where ample evidence confirming said act has been collected, or can be collected in due course, the local educational authority, the governing body and the headteacher are duly obliged to:-
(a) notify the police, and where necessary and requested, hold the member of educational staff, using reasonable force, on the educational institution’s premises, where the safety of pupils and fellow members of education staff are not at risk, until the member of education staff is under the control/possession of the Police.
(b) immediately surrender all files, information and known assets of the member of education staff to the relevant authority
(c) within twenty-four hours, notify the Secretary of State for Education, the Department for Education, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Home Office.
(d) within seventy-two hours, convene an emergency meeting of the governing body with compulsory attendance, under the sole premise of total confidentiality, with at least one representative from each of the following:-
(i) the local educational authority,
(ii) the Department of Education,
(iii) CONTEST,
(iv) the Home Office.
(e) if and when appropriate, notify all parents of pupils currently in attendance at the educational institution, as well as all those who may have come into contact with the affected member of educational staff unless the parties detailed in subsection (c) or subsection (d) raise concerns in doing so.
(2) The pure teaching, without glorification and indoctrination, of the actions, methods and ideologies of proscribed organisations in an educational environment for the purposes of informing pupils shall remain unaffected by this Act - that is to say, the procedures detailed in S(5)(1) are not to occur.

6 - Records
(1) The local education authority, governing body and the school must keep dedicated records of recorded instances of ‘indoctrination’.
(2) Records of ‘indoctrination’ must include, at the bare minimum:-
(a) the name of the member of educational staff;
(b) the date and approximate time of the instance of indoctrination;
(c) the pupil(s) affected by indoctrination;
(d) the type of indoctrination;
(e) the exact actions and/or words;
(f) at least two ‘independent’ witnesses - this may be replaced with closed circuit television footage obtained by the educational institution or unaltered multimedia sources exterior to the educational institution where the legitimacy of said source can be verified to a probability that exceeds 80%.
(3) These records must be available on demand, in full, to the Secretary of State, and provided to the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills at regular intervals.
(4) These records may also be provided through the application of external legislation:
(a) Where a request for the aforementioned records has been made to the educational institution under the entitlements as detailed under data protection regulations, the educational institution must, in accordance with said data protection regulations, provide the full entry with the following redacted:-
(i) personal details, other than his/her name, relating to the member of educational staff;
(ii) explicit details relating to the member of educational staff’s racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious beliefs, membership of trade unions, physical or mental health or condition, sexual life, the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence, or any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings;
(iii) identifying information in regards to the ‘independent’ witnesses;
(b) Where a request for the aforementioned records has been made to the educational institution under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the educational institution must, in accordance with data protection regulations, provide the full entry requested with the following redacted:-
(i) personal details, other than his/her name, relating to the member of educational staff;
(ii) explicit details relating to the member of educational staff’s racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious beliefs, membership of trade unions, physical or mental health or condition, sexual life, the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence, or any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings;
(iii) personal details or identifying information relating to the pupil(s) involved;
(iv) identifying information in regards to the ‘independent’ witnesses;
(c) With application to subsection (4)(b) and in accordance with section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act of 2000 and data protection regulations, an educational institution may refuse compliance with a request on the basis that:-
(i) the request, in terms of resources, is projected to exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ of £600;
(ii) the request is deemed as ‘vexatious’;
(iii) the request is one to which the educational institution on a prior occasion complied with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 within a reasonable time interval;

7 - Short title and extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the Educational Indoctrination Act 2018.
(2) This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
(3) This Act is to come into effect on the 1st of September 2018


Notes8 - Notes
The current provisions for educational indoctrination as detailed in the Terrorism Act 2000 and Sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act of 1996 are vague, and fail to include explicit procedural remediatory action as to protect the integrity of the education system and protect the most vulnerable in our society - children - from being imbued with toxic partisan principles, opinions, points of view, ideals, attitudes, cognitive strategies or professional methodologies by educational staff that have indisputable and explicit links to proscribed organisations - organisations that explicitly wish to destroy our society and removing all liberties and freedoms.

This Bill removes all ambiguity - explicitly delinating procedural remediatory action as to preserve the integrity of the education system.

In regards to ‘data protection regulations’, new legislation incorporating the ‘General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) has yet to be enacted - a Bill has been proposed IRL, however it has yet to enter the House of Commons for consideration. This Bill has aimed to include provisions for transitional arrangements.


Changes for the Second Reading9 - Changes for the Second Reading
For the Second Reading, the following changes were instituted:
  • As to limit ‘missguided’ interpretations by future governments, references to ‘mainstream politics’ have been removed in favour for references to ‘fundamental British values’ which have been explicitly defined; by the same token, the definition of indoctrination has been slightly amended - placing emphasis on the uncritical pursuit and promotion of ideologies.
  • As to reinforce the purpose of this Act, S(5)(2) has been included to protect the education of events pertaining to ‘proscribed organisations’;
  • As to make provisions for the GDPR, references to data protection regulation have been amended.

0
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Aye.
0
CountBrandenburg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
I believe the changes made to this bill are sufficient to allow for freedom within the educational system regarding such a topic, and the fact that this now cannot be used to promote censorship of groups that are contrary to a government’s ideology. It will be an Aye from me
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
These changes are prudent - aye.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
This bill is worse than the first reading because including tolerance as a fundamental British value could be used against individuals who campaign against multiculturalism, promote assimilation, believe some cultures are superior to other cultures, do not want Britain to accept refugees, and take viewpoints considered controversial.
1
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by CountBrandenburg)
I believe the changes made to this bill are sufficient to allow for freedom within the educational system regarding such a topic, and the fact that this now cannot be used to promote censorship of groups that are contrary to a government’s ideology. It will be an Aye from me
I am surprised, the bill impedes on free speech because individuals holding views classified as intolerant would be illegal to share. In context, UKIP, the Daily Mail, the Conservative Party, the alternative-right, and socialists have all been called intolerant: courts could rule on of those groups is illegal because the line of what is intolerant is not clear.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by Jacob E)
This bill is worse than the first reading because including tolerance as a fundamental British value could be used against individuals who campaign against multiculturalism, promote assimilation, believe some cultures are superior to other cultures, do not want Britain to accept refugees, and take viewpoints considered controversial.
The definition of 'fundamental British values' in this bill has not been created by this Government - rather it is one utilised as part of OFSTED's inspection policy, and, more importantly, the Prevent strategy.

Ultimately, it is these values that are, and should be, taught in schools today.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by ns_2)
The definition of 'fundamental British values' in this bill has not been created by this Government - rather it is one utilised as part of OFSTED's inspection policy, and, more importantly, the Prevent strategy.

Ultimately, it is these values that are, and should be, taught in schools today.
It is a definition which that not be included in law because it is easy to abuse, there is evidence to say the value is being abused to limit sensible political debate in schools, the definition should not be taken to limit sensible political debate using law.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by Jacob E)
It is a definition which that not be included in law because it is easy to abuse, there is evidence to say the value is being abused to limit sensible political debate in schools, the definition should not be taken to limit sensible political debate using law.
Regardless, your point fails to stand - yes, some people campaign for the unequivocal assimilation of 'foreigners' into society and this could be seen as intolerant; but, pupils should not be taught to be intolerant and unwelcoming of other faith, beliefs and cultures.

It is this 'intolerance' that has led to the disgusting proliferation of the Islamic State.
0
WobblyBovine
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
I supported the first reading, and I will support the second. Aye.
0
CountBrandenburg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Jacob E)
I am surprised, the bill impedes on free speech because individuals holding views classified as intolerant would be illegal to share. In context, UKIP, the Daily Mail, the Conservative Party, the alternative-right, and socialists have all been called intolerant: courts could rule on of those groups is illegal because the line of what is intolerant is not clear.
My question would be should the word ‘tolerance’ be removed from the definition, would it impede free speech any less in your eyes?
I did bring up the idea of ‘British values’ in the first reading because in my view, that would be something more acceptable nationally. It does come down to whether there is such a way of wording this without somehow using its definitions to attack groups with certain views.
Should courts allow the groups you’ve listed to be banned, it would be very hypocritical of a system that encourages different viewpoints, and is only intolerant of those groups with specific calls for violence and spreading these ideologies.
In a sense, I wouldn’t call campaigning against multiculturalism and believing some cultures to be superior as intolerant per se, seeing these ideas as just more opinions which don’t openly cause anyone harm, though I’m sure many out there would argue against my opinion.
I think this bill is a good provision to cut off any expansion of extremism within our education system, which could damage our national values, and I appreciate the thinking behind it ( though I’m sure you could propose ways of making it better)
0
CoffeeAndPolitics
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
Aye, same as the reasons given in first reading.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by ns_2)
Regardless, your point fails to stand - yes, some people campaign for the unequivocal assimilation of 'foreigners' into society and this could be seen as intolerant; but, pupils should not be taught to be intolerant and unwelcoming of other faith, beliefs and cultures.

It is this 'intolerance' that has led to the disgusting proliferation of the Islamic State.
Over half of British Muslims want being gay to be illegal should children be taught about Islam? It’s intolerant, in fact if you ban certain ideas you are yourself intolerant.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by CountBrandenburg)
My question would be should the word ‘tolerance’ be removed from the definition, would it impede free speech any less in your eyes?
I did bring up the idea of ‘British values’ in the first reading because in my view, that would be something more acceptable nationally. It does come down to whether there is such a way of wording this without somehow using its definitions to attack groups with certain views.
Should courts allow the groups you’ve listed to be banned, it would be very hypocritical of a system that encourages different viewpoints, and is only intolerant of those groups with specific calls for violence and spreading these ideologies.
In a sense, I wouldn’t call campaigning against multiculturalism and believing some cultures to be superior as intolerant per se, seeing these ideas as just more opinions which don’t openly cause anyone harm, though I’m sure many out there would argue against my opinion.
I think this bill is a good provision to cut off any expansion of extremism within our education system, which could damage our national values, and I appreciate the thinking behind it ( though I’m sure you could propose ways of making it better)
Are you saying this bill impedes free speech and you support it?
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by ns_2)
Regardless, your point fails to stand - yes, some people campaign for the unequivocal assimilation of 'foreigners' into society and this could be seen as intolerant; but, pupils should not be taught to be intolerant and unwelcoming of other faith, beliefs and cultures.

It is this 'intolerance' that has led to the disgusting proliferation of the Islamic State.
It is not about teaching values, it is about allowing children to discuss sensible values in school, this bill could make it illegal for children to promote socialism, promote the real life Conservative Party's manifesto, and campaign against some laws if deemed to be intolerant. This bill does not work because what tolerance is has not been defined, the law could be manipulated by a a court defining tolerance in a restrictive way.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by Jacob E)
It is not about teaching values, it is about allowing children to discuss sensible values in school, this bill could make it illegal for children to promote socialism, promote the real life Conservative Party's manifesto, and campaign against some laws if deemed to be intolerant. This bill does not work because what tolerance is has not been defined, the law could be manipulated by a a court defining tolerance in a restrictive way.
I understand that 'tolerance' can be interpreted differently by different people - however, in the context and spirit of the wider definition of 'fundamental British values' it is clear.

However, you discuss possible issues apropos of pupil discussion - this bill does not affect pupil discussion. This bill, put simply, bans teachers from indoctrinating and glorifying the ideologies and actions of 'proscribed organisations' i.e. extremists - who go against fundamental British values.

Pupils remain free to discuss whatever they want.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by ns_2)
I understand that 'tolerance' can be interpreted differently by different people - however, in the context and spirit of the wider definition of 'fundamental British values' it is clear.

However, you discuss possible issues apropos of pupil discussion - this bill does not affect pupil discussion. This bill, put simply, bans teachers from indoctrinating and glorifying the ideologies and actions of 'proscribed organisations' i.e. extremists - who go against fundamental British values.

Pupils remain free to discuss whatever they want.
pupils will not be free to discuss what they want because teacher will be forced to report, stop, and outlaw children promoting values to their peers and pursuing values. To claim tolerance is defined clearly is wrong when there is a case of two individuals debating what tolerating different faiths means, for example, a child campaigning to reduce Islamic immigration could be seen as intolerant of Muslims, however, there is a current political debate happening on that topic: this bill does not cater for situations like that.
0
CountBrandenburg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by joecphillips)
Are you saying this bill impedes free speech and you support it?
Not exactly, I don’t think it impedes free speech. I think there will be people who’d argue that those groups that Jacob mentioned should be banned ( I for one don’t believe that). I believe that we should be intolerant of something to ensure a liberal society ( for example actions that directly threat such freedom shouldn’t be tolerated, and once again the things Jacob mentioned don’t threaten that). Reading over my post, I find it plausible that you can find my views as one that supports impeding free speech, though as I’ve asked: how would you propose in making this as unambiguous as possible whilst not limiting freedom of speech at all ( in your view)?
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by CountBrandenburg)
Not exactly, I don’t think it impedes free speech. I think there will be people who’d argue that those groups that Jacob mentioned should be banned ( I for one don’t believe that). I believe that we should be intolerant of something to ensure a liberal society ( for example actions that directly threat such freedom shouldn’t be tolerated, and once again the things Jacob mentioned don’t threaten that). Reading over my post, I find it plausible that you can find my views as one that supports impeding free speech, though as I’ve asked: how would you propose in making this as unambiguous as possible whilst not limiting freedom of speech at all ( in your view)?
Simple I wouldn’t pass this bill which impedes free speech.

Are you saying we shouldn’t tolerate the intolerant?
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
I still fear that it is not possible to define the unlawful activities sufficiently clearly to avoid this having a freezing effect on teaching about unusual ideologies. It is much, much better than the first reading but I must still vote nay - I don't feel it possible to write a Bill which has the intended effect without having significant implications for practical freedom of speech.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What do you want most from university virtual open days and online events?

I want to be able to watch in my own time rather than turn up live (189)
29.3%
I want to hear more about the specifics of the course (106)
16.43%
I want to be able to dip in and dip out of lots of different sessions (58)
8.99%
I want to meet current students (54)
8.37%
I want to meet academics and the people that will be teaching me (51)
7.91%
I want to have a taster lecture or workshop to see what the teaching is like (128)
19.84%
My parents/guardians are more interested than me to be honest (38)
5.89%
Other things – I'll tell you in the thread (21)
3.26%

Watched Threads

View All