Right to protest enshrined in our constitution

JULIE LEIBOWITZ

Though it prompted a backlash by US President Donald Trump – who like some Herzlia commentators, called for the players to be “thrown off the field” – taking the knee has been a symbol of public, peaceful protest since it was adopted by Martin Luther King Jr in the US civil-rights movement of the 1960s.

Because the Herzlia children are enrolled at a Jewish school, they can be expected to respect the school’s values, particularly in regard to the state of Israel. However, they also have a constitutional right to peaceful protest and freedom of expression.

Right to protest

Article 16 of South Africa’s constitution – freedom of expression – enshrines the right of all South Africans to receive or impart information or ideas, as well as academic freedom.

These freedoms are backed up by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in its preamble: “Disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief, and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.”

Humanium, an international NGO based in Geneva, says that rights to freedom of thought and expression also apply to children, who have the right “to think freely, and … determine what will be the principles which will guide their existence”. It says children “have the right to participate in the life of their society”, and are “free to have thoughts which evolve and change according to their degree of maturity and discernment”.

The right to freedom of speech is thus a constitutional and universal human right.

Right to criticize

Herzlia is a Jewish day school, and therefore supports Israel. Though the school supports the existence of the state of Israel, this doesn’t extend to enforcing blanket support for the government and policies of the day. The school should not deny students the right to express political convictions that may contradict those of the school, particularly if it is done peacefully and within the safety of the school environment.

Protest wasn’t anti-Semitic

The recently released working definition of anti-Semitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance states that it isn’t anti-Semitic to criticise Israel’s policies, but it is anti-Semitic to deny Jewish people the right to self-determination, or to single Israel out among nations for criticism.

Desirability of a questioning mind

What is an education if it doesn’t encourage our children to question? Enforcing beliefs is anti-educational. Like parrot learning, it encourages our children not to think, not to enquire, and ultimately not to learn.

Enforcing beliefs at school – and not allowing children to express contrary opinions – is diametrically opposed to a 21st century education, where an independent, creative thought process is precisely what is needed to survive in the new world of work.

It discourages children from developing a conscience and a sense of social activism born of moral conviction. Social activism is not just a “nice to have”; it underpins the modern world, from governments to corporations, which are increasingly seeking to “do well by doing good”.

The right to express contrary views and to protest is enshrined in our democracy – so long as it isn’t hate speech. By protesting against the singing of the Hatikvah, the students were expressing this right.

Herzlia should value these pupils’ integrity, sense of conviction, and independence of mind. Rather than singling them out for punishment, it could turn their protest into a learning opportunity.

Though they should be discouraged from disrespecting the values of the school during a public assembly, Herzlia should create an environment in which contrary ideas can be debated in safety and for the benefit of all.

Julie Leibowitz is the mother of children at a Jewish school in Johannesburg.