A little late this time. This post combines current events with something I had saved up from last year. Isn’t it funny how children’s rights always seems to be topical?! Feel free to comment, share, and sign up for more (it’s free).
I’ve been glued to the media coverage of the various blockades across Canada these past few weeks, and in particular to stories about children at the blockades. Children were seen having a good time in bouncy castles in Ottawa. Children were seen being used as props at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor. My thesis supervisor was interviewed by Radio-Canada to talk about children at the Ottawa blockade. The federal government’s emergency declaration included a prohibition on children participating in unlawful protests (see section 2(2)). A few days later, children were reportedly being used as buffers between police and protesters when police worked to clear the Ottawa blockade, though children’s aid has not had to take any children into their care. In light of all this, I keep asking myself: if all this is indeed about freedom, are children’s freedoms being respected?
As usual, my starting point is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (child-friendly PDF). Article 13 says that children have freedom of expression, article 14 says that children have freedom of conscience, and article 15 says that children are free to associate and assemble peacefully. In terms of expression, children get to seek out relevant information and choose how they express themselves. In terms of conscience, children can think what they want and the adults in their lives are expected to provide direction in ways that respect the child’s evolving capacities. In all cases, the freedoms are subject to limits to protect public order and to protect others’ rights and freedoms. Moreover, since under the Convention everything is interconnected, children’s best interests (article 3) and safety (article 19) have to be taken into consideration, not only by the state but by parents and guardians (article 5).
In Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets out similar rights, freedoms and limits, though without specific reference to children’s best interests.
The legal context seems relatively straightforward: children, like adults, have a right to protest as long as that protest doesn’t cause harm. The difficulty, at least in the context of the blockades, lies in figuring out whether it is indeed the child who is protesting, or if the child is merely being used to support the parent’s protest. Those with more proprietary views of childhood might say they’re one and the same. In addition, blockade participants’ apparently tenuous grasp of law and norms makes the question even more complicated. Without asking the children directly, however, there’s no way to know for sure who is expressing what and why.
A story from last year about children’s free expression provides a more concrete example. In November 2021, a high school student in Bradford, Ontario was suspended for refusing to take down a Thin Blue Line flag that he had on his truck. The official reason for the suspension was “opposition to authority.” The student had explained that he chose to fly the flag in support of family members who work in law enforcement. Those who had complained about the flag pointed to its appropriation by white supremacists.
My reaction when I read the story was mixed. I generally sympathize with the objectors’ point of view. A suspension, though, seemed heavy-handed in the circumstances. And yet, a principal has to think about the entire school community, so if some feel unease at the sight of the flag, a response of some kind is warranted. The student flying the flag was able to provide an explanation of his beliefs to the principal. Those who objected were heard. However, the outcome was a child being temporarily excluded from school, seemingly for publicly expressing his beliefs. According to one source, the student now covers the flag when his truck is on school property: a limit on expression that seems to have been agreed on in the end.
All that to say, freedom of expression can be messy, in particular when it has to be balanced with others’ rights.
That messiness brings me, finally, to symbols. In the Thin Blue Line case, the symbol remains a matter of controversy. In the case of the blockades, the first weekend brought out clearly hateful symbols. Since then, other symbols were on display. Of course, protests are all about displaying symbols to represent one’s cause. However, accepting the presence of symbols without reflecting on the meaning and impact of those symbols is potentially dangerous. In the school case, the apparent lack of any meaningful discussion around a controversial symbol led to further controversy. In the blockades, one could link the uncritical acceptance of various symbols to the emboldening of bad actors with their own symbols.
If children are exercising their own freedoms of expression, conscience and association, then that means they are doing so of their own volition, with all relevant information and guidance to do so safely, in a manner that respects democratic norms and children’s evolving capacities. Otherwise, from a children’s rights perspective, it’s not freedom.
"...exercising their own freedoms of expression, conscience and association, then that means they are doing so of their own volition, with all relevant information and guidance to do so safely, in a manner that respects democratic norms and children’s evolving capacities."
Is understanding democratic norms a requirement of peaceful assembly and dissent?