It’s not the “reeducation” part that’s wrong, it’s the “forced” part. I’m not really even okay with forcing children to go to school. But the fact that we have private schools and home schooling quells my apprehension somewhat.
But forcibly reeducating adults? Because you dislike their political views? That’s Orwellian, or more to the point, North Korean. It shouldn’t be happening in the land of liberté, égalité, fraternité.
You want to do this to prisoners who have been convicted by a jury of their peers? Knock yourself out. But people who are just “radicalized” and not actually criminals? What part of “not actually criminals” don’t you get?
Those of you mentioning the jury, do you think that legal decisions, taken anywhere, which are part of that country’s legal system, are not valid unless a jury was involved?
Well, the US education system is nucking futs, but that’s besides the point :).
France is a bit different in these regards - thank the Lord we’re not bloody Texas ! Teachers here have a huge influence on the curriculum (in part because most teachers are politically active, and most are in unions as well). More importantly, teachers in France (at every level - high school, uni etc…) are very keen on distancing themselves from the government, even if they draw a salary from it. It’s a cultural/historical thing as much as it is an institutional one. Which doesn’t mean there aren’t teachers & administrators who are willing, even eager shills for the Republic, but that’s on them rather than the institution.
As a result, for example, a law was proposed by the head of the Department of Education a couple years back mandating that history classes & manuals include a bit on “the positive aspects of colonization”. That led to massive strikes, and a vigorous public debate involving academics of all stripes as well as high school teachers and historians. The law was quietly abandoned.
We (I might as well get started on this, since I’ll probably be a history teacher myself in a couple years ) don’t fuck around with our neutrality.
That’s not political, that’s ethical. And there are no ethics classes (I guess philosophy might qualify ? ), even though this stuff naturally percolates through by osmosis.
Yes, I think punishing people and depriving them of their rights without due process is wrong, and not a valid way to govern. If everyone else is doing it, well, they can all jump off a bridge, I’m still not going to follow.
Um, surely politics is a particular application of ethics? Ethics asks “what is the right thing to do?” Poltics asks “what is the right thing to do?” in relation to question of public policy.
There may or may not be formal classes in ethics, but every school in every culture undoubtedly imparts and fosters ethical beliefs and values. I don’t see how you can have an education which doesn’t do this. The only question is whether the educators reflect on what they’re doing in this regard, or do in in an unreflective way, or are simply in denial about the fact that they are doing it at all.
As it happens, formal courses in philosophy play a larger part in the typical French educational experience than I think they do in the US, and I’d be astonished if those classes never dealt with ethics or with politics.
The real problem here isn’t the abstract concept of having a re-education center but to what extent the government will have fair policies that accurately differentiate between truly dangerous people and people who are not violent, or at least not likely to become violent. I will avoid making the obvious comparison lest I lose the thread, but nobody (or, at least very few people) want to round up all Muslims and ship them to concentration camps etc.
“Without due process” and “without a trial by jury” are two very different situations. I ask again, do you believe that justice can only be applied through a trial involving a jury?
Aside from due process being different in different locations, in countries where due process often involves juries, it does not do so in every single instance. For those of you who are from locations where juries are common, a belief that justice cannot be served unless a trial by jury has been involved is either ignorance or rejection of your own system.
Its not abstract at all. Governments currently have and support re-education in the form of laws, curriculum, trainings, etc. for students, workers, and the public in general. Calling a school a re-education camp doesn’t change what it is, it just slaps a scary name on it.
Again, only the government can and should do this, because the government by definition is a representation of the people. Push back against it if it goes too far, but not acting at all is no solution. If someone wants to put all Muslims, then push back. But if someone just wants to target the radicals, then let’s see how that works out.
You seem to be arguing that because there is no objective good or bad, we cannot make a subjectively biased re-education criteria. I’ve shown that such a thing is false, we do it all the time. Just keep it transparent and the people accountable so that it doesn’t go too far.
I’m talking about France, but yes, there are outliers as there are in everything. More importantly, in those countries, there is no organization representative of the people. Where such a thing exists, it usually comes in the form of government, but I admit I spoke too quickly
And how do you know that the governments of those countries aren’t representative of their people? They’re not democratically elected, but if a majority of Somalis are convinced that “by force” is the best form of government, then their government is representative of the majority.
Yes, and all slaves were voluntary workers because they didn’t risk their lives and their families’ lives on an attempted escape/rebellion. And the Holocaust was the fault of those wimpy Jews. :smack:
Forcing someone to do something by threat of violence is not freedom nor representation, simply because they didn’t loudly object, knowing you’ll punish them for doing so. I can see now why you don’t think jury trials are an important component of justice. If the government tells you to do something, that’s justice, by definition! Why are we listening to all these lowborn losers and criminals, right? If they cared enough they’d just oust the government in a bloodless coup. And if they don’t, the government must be just hunky dory. That’s like saying poor people love cockroaches and rats because they can’t afford to more or hire pest control.
Actually, I never said that the government of Somalia was representative, but I did point out it could be. A system does not have to be one you personally would like in order to be considered ok by those who use it. God knows I’ve been in enough clients and locations whose people thought their systems and processes were “just fine” when they made me want to gouge my eyes out.
“Jury by trial” and “sir, yes sir!” are not the only possible components of a justice system. In fact, YOUR justice system includes many options other than a jury trial: trials by individual judges or a panel of judges, plea deals, arbitration…
) don’t fuck around with our neutrality.