By Carmel Corrigan
“I DISAPPROVE of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
This oft-used quote is frequently rolled out to defend free speech. It can, of course, also be used as a counterpoint to the adage that children should be seen and not heard. Both phrases came to mind over the last few weeks because of some of the quite worrying conversations I have been having about children’s right to express their views on matters that affect them, and to have these views considered by decision-makers. This is, in summary, Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Professor Laura Lundy, the internationally renowned children’s rights and children’s participation expert, has frequently talked and written about the “myths” of children’s participation in decision-making. These myths are used as reasons (excuses?) by adults when it is inconvenient to ask children what they think about decisions that will affect their lives. Conversations over the past few weeks have also brought these to the forefront of my mind, in addition to a few new ones that have been aired.
Myth number one stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the right to be heard: children can’t make the decision. First, expressing a view is not the same as decision-making. It does not give children decision-making responsibility, nor should it. Like any other group, they will have a particular perspective on things. This perspective is not right or wrong, but it is essential when making decisions that affect children.
Why? Because adults cannot experience and view the world as children do: only children can do that. This myth goes along with: children are the experts in their own lives. Children are certainly experts in their own experiences of the world, but they are not the only experts in their lives. Adults can be experts too, but in a different way and from different perspectives.
Myth number two is: children don’t understand what is good for them/the complexity of the issue/the big picture/etc. Loosely translated, this can often be paraphrased as “children will not agree with the decision favoured by the decision-makers”. However, Article 12 does not say that we should only get children’s views when we know they will agree with what we want. It says we should listen to and consider children’s views to inform what we think we should do. If we disagree with what children say they want, or can’t deliver on it, then we need to go back and explain why.
Myth number three is: we only need to give children the opportunity to express their views when we want, or more commonly, need to know what they think. Affording children the right to express their views is not a utilitarian act, any more than it is a charitable one. It is a human right that must be extended to all children.
Can you imagine taking this approach to any adult human right? How about the right to a fair trial? Can any of us imagine a judge saying that they would only hear from the defence if they considered them to be useful? So why is this reasoning applied to children?
Myth number four (and one I have heard several times in recent weeks): X or Y children are not representative. Children are not required to represent others in the expression of their views and the right is afforded to all children individually. Most adult groups are not representative of all adults; nor do we expect them to be. At the risk of causing unintended offence, look at the Members of the States Assembly, for example. How representative are they of the entire adult population of Jersey?
The final myth I want to talk about is: the issues are too sensitive. This can be combined with the myth of “they are too vulnerable”. This raises the question of protection versus participation, which is a false dichotomy. One of the best ways to keep children safe is to listen to them, but you can only expect them to talk to you when they feel safe. It is our responsibility as adults and duty bearers to create relationships and circumstances in which this can happen.
In that safe and facilitative space, properly supported by caring and informed adults, children can and do talk about sensitive issues, and children deemed vulnerable for whom being heard is a protective process and who particularly need to be heard can express their views.
Jersey does not have a long history of children’s participation in decision-making but there is movement afoot in this area. There are structures and projects that support children to express their views and take part in decision-making. The former Youth Parliament and forthcoming Youth Assembly and school councils are examples of these, as is the fledgling CYPES Children in Care Council and the work of the Jersey Family Justice Council on hearing children’s experiences and views. Nonetheless, there is still a long way to go.
For our part, our office works to involve children and young people through its Youth Advisory Panel. Is this a fully representative group of all children and young people in Jersey? No. Does that invalidate the experiences and views of its members? No, it does not. Would we like to have more members and broader diversity? Yes, we would and are actively working on recruitment to achieve this.
So, if you happen to know a child who has things to say about their experiences of life in Jersey, please send them our way. Our commitment is to build that space where they feel safe, valued and supported to express their views, and to work with them to have an impact.
