An article in The Spectator by Douglas Murray is a critique of the UK government’s Prevent program, which was set up to counter radicalization and extremism.
Murray argues that the program has expanded its scope beyond Islamist extremism to include right-wing extremism, which is defined very broadly and arbitrarily by left-wing activist groups.
Murray cites a report by Prevent’s own research unit, which claimed that people who follow pro-Brexit and centre-right commentators on social media are at risk of being radicalized. He mocks this claim and suggests that it is an attempt to stigmatize and silence opinions that are shared by many British people. (And beyond)
He mentions Lewis, Tolkien and Orwell as examples of authors whose works could be seen as potential sources of radicalization by Prevent. Because according to Prevent’s logic, radicalization could occur from reading C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Huxley or Conrad. Murray adds that he is not kidding and that this is based on a document by Prevent’s education team that was leaked in 2019. The document listed these authors as examples of ‘challenging texts’ that could be used to ‘stimulate discussion’ with students who might be at risk of extremism.
This is absurd and shows how Prevent has lost its focus and credibility.
“Freedom of expression” by Harald Groven is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
In the U.K. today the answer is YES.
The U.K. has introduced a new law that bans silent prayer and any form of influence in a 150-meter zone around abortion facilities nationwide. If you are found silently praying within the length of a football field, you can be arrested and charged.
Set aside any view you might have about the efficacy or ethics of praying outside an abortion clinic. Surely those of us who uphold freedom of expression and conscience as indispensable rights of persons in a free society should be alarmed by such a law.
Each of them was arrested, fined, or acquitted for praying silently in zones deemed too close to an abortion clinic. The recently passed law says the protected censorship zone is the size of a football field.
These zones create legal confusion and empower the state to punish peaceful actions on the public street, which is harmful to a free society. But their supporters say they are protecting women. This aim sounds good in theory, but it is not true. Harassment is always wrong, and that is why it is already illegal under U.K. law. These zones are not about stopping harassment. You don’t need huge zones of silence to do that. This is about suppressing a certain perspective—in this case, the view that every unborn child has a right to life.
Every person should have the right to peacefully think, pray, and act according to his or her beliefs. After these harsh restrictions are introduced, we can expect serious consequences for basic freedoms in the U.K. Today the state is using its silencing power to promote abortion, but tomorrow it could apply similar measures to other issues.
It is urgent that all who care about the preservation of a free society resist the thought police.
“Thought police” by leighblackall is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
How giving parents more options can improve education outcomes
School choice is the idea that parents should have the freedom to choose the best educational option for their children, whether it’s a public school, a private school, a charter school, a homeschool, religious school, or an online school.
School choice advocates argue that giving parents more options can increase competition, innovation, and accountability in the education system and ultimately lead to better outcomes for students.
What are the benefits of school choice for parents and students? Here are some of the main advantages of having more educational options:
School choice can match students with schools that fit their needs and preferences.
Not all students learn the same way or have the same interests and goals. School choice can allow parents to find schools that offer the curriculum, teaching style, environment, and extracurricular activities that suit their children best. For example, some parents may prefer a school that focuses on STEM subjects, while others may want a school that emphasizes arts and humanities. Some parents may value a school that has a strong religious affiliation, while others may seek a school that promotes diversity and inclusion. School choice can help parents find the best fit for their children’s unique needs and aspirations.
School choice can improve student achievement and satisfaction.
Several studies have shown that school choice can have positive effects on student outcomes, such as test scores, graduation rates, college enrollment, and career readiness. For example, a meta-analysis of 19 studies found that students who attended charter schools performed better in math and reading than their peers who attended traditional public schools. Another study found that students who received vouchers to attend private schools had higher graduation rates and college enrollment rates than their counterparts who remained in public schools. School choice can also increase student satisfaction and engagement, as they are more likely to enjoy learning and feel motivated when they attend a school of their choice.
School choice can empower parents and increase their involvement in education.
School choice can give parents more control and responsibility over their children’s education, which can foster a sense of ownership and commitment. Parents who exercise school choice are more likely to be involved in their children’s schooling, such as by attending parent-teacher conferences, volunteering at school events, helping with homework, and providing feedback to teachers and administrators. Parental involvement can have positive effects on student achievement, behavior, and well-being.
School choice can bring quality education to the poor.
Education choice gives children the opportunity to attend schools that are not based on their housing location. This means the cost of home a family can buy no longer limits their child’s access to a quality education.
For some middle-income families, and many more upper-income families, this is not a problem. They can afford to pay both for their child’s private school fees and the taxes to support the public system. But for lower-income families, this is not possible.
School choice means access to a quality education is not dependent on a family’s ability to buy an expensive home or pay twice.
By giving parents more freedom to choose the best educational option for their children, school choice can improve education outcomes and satisfaction for students of all backgrounds and abilities.
