The Youth Support Act 2012, Claims for Pricilla - Essay Example

?The Youth Support Act Case Study Introduction The Youth Support Act intends to make Local Councils in Wales obliged to provide young people within the community with a set of agreed services. This legal policy mainly tries to support young people coming from disadvantaged backgrounds. As per the provisions, young individuals between the ages of five and fourteen years old are the beneficiaries of the Youth Support Act 2012. Recently, Tree Tops, a profit making after school youth club, started its operations on Bangor High Street so as to provide after school recreational activities for young people aged between 11 and 16 years old. As part of its statutory obligations to provide support for young people, the Bangor City Council has agreed to fully and part fund qualifying young people to attend Tree Tops. Due to some hostile policies of the City Council, some students cannot enjoy the provisions of The Youth Support Act 2012. This paper will analyze the different grounds for bringing a claim with reference to each of the relevant parties. The paper will pay particular attention to points for both appellant and respondent. Claims for Pricilla The Bangor City Council has recently decided that it will only fund a complete academic year’s attendance at the youth club. As a result of this policy, the Council refuses individuals to enjoy the benefits of the fully or part funding scheme before the age of five and if they turn fifteen within the academic year. On the ground of this funding policy, the Council refused to include Pricilla who is 14 years and 2 months old in this funding scheme. The Council argues that Pricilla can obtain only 10 months’ attendance at the youth club before she turns fifteen and hence she is not eligible for enjoying this particular funding scheme. Here, Pricilla can claim that the Tree Tops club provides recreational activities for young people aged between 11 and 16 and therefore she cannot attend the program if she is refused funding for the scheme on this age basis. Pointing to this, she can argue that the Council should raise the age limit to 16 so as to assist maximum young people to take part in the Tree Tops. Furthermore, Pricilla may demand part funding scheme because she is yet to attain the age of 15. In other words, she can obtain attendance for 10 months before she turns fifteen in the current academic year and therefore she must receive a proportionate funding. However, these arguments may not be valid or justifiable in the eyes of law. It is important to note that The Youth Support Act 2012 defines a young person “as someone between the ages of five and fourteen years old”1. According to this definition, Pricilla is not eligible to obtain the protection of this Act because she is currently 14 years and 2 months old. More precisely, she is not a beneficiary of the Youth Support Act 2012. The Bangor City Council policy framework clearly states that it will refuse to allow anyone onto the fully or part funded scheme if the candidates turn fifteen within the academic year. Hence, it cannot be claimed that the Council violated Pricilla’s rights provided by this Act. In an ethical perspective, Pricilla should be allowed to enjoy the protection of this Act and not be refused funding for the scheme on the ground of age eligibility cut-offs. If she is disqualified by the Council based on age criterion, she may not be possible to attend Tree Tops in her life because this club will not admit candidates aged over 16. Claims for Amreen and Nabeel Amreen, a 14 year old girl qualified for the full funding scheme was told by the Tree Tops that she would not be permitted to wear her religious headscarf owing to concerns over her personal safety during game activities. Although Amreen agreed to remove her headscarf, her brother Nabeel is outraged by the decision of the Tree Tops. In this case, Nabeel can argue that the Tree Tops had refused his sister’s fundamental rights by asking her to remove the religious headscarf. The right to freedom of religion is one of the constitutional rights in the United Kingdom2. In addition, the UK is a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), which provides the freedom of religion in Article 93. Wearing hijab is a part of Islamic faith and therefore banning hijab is the clear violation of ECHR and citizens’ constitutional rights. In 2003, the former Home Office Minister Fiona MacTaggart stated that “in Britain, we have a proud tradition of supporting free speech and allowing people to follow their own beliefs. The British way is to support religious freedom”4. However, there are no national guidelines about wearing religious headscarf in schools. As a result, there have been intense disputes between Muslim parents and school authorities on wearing hijab in schools. In order to support her claims, Amreen can refer to the court decision on the Luton case. In this case, a Muslim student refused to comply with Luton High School’s uniform requirement arguing that jiljab (a full length gown) was the only dress that will adequately meet her religious faith. At the same time, the school management claimed that it had the right to choose a ‘reasonable and balanced’ dress code for students in order to effectively run a state high school admitting students with multiple and diverse faiths. Hence, the Luton school refused to admit that student. After reviewing different aspects of the case, the Court of Appeal ruled that the school’s decision to exclude the student for wearing jiljab was unlawful. In this case, the Court of Appeal clearly stated that schools must consider the premise that “a student had a right to manifest her religious beliefs” while making decisions under such circumstances5. It is obvious that the Tree Tops does not permit Amreen to wear religious headscarf citing concerns over her personal safety during game activities. Here, Amreen and her brother can argue that safety must be one’s individual choice and hence safety concerns should not hurt a person’s religious freedom. However, it is to be noted that the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the appellant in the Luton case because the school management had adopted a wrong approach in making the decision. More clearly, the Court did not hold that the school management’s “uniform requirement itself was unlawful”6. Hence, it is yet to decide whether a school can legally restrict the wearing of jiljab. Furthermore, the Tree Tops can argue that safety is paramount in a recreational environment and student safety should not be compromised to entertain religious faith. While considering the ethical aspects and other social consequences related to this issue, Tree Tops should permit Amreen to continue the program without removing hijab. Wearing hijab is inevitable for Muslim women according to the Islamic faith7. Therefore, a ban on hijab in schools or other public institutions would really hurt the religious emotions of Islamic followers. In addition, banning hijab may aggravate Islamic extremists, who are already posing serious security threats to the country through terror attacks. Evidently, such a situation would adversely affect religious harmony and social peace in Wales. Claims for Children’s Right Alliance 400 The Children’s Right Alliance (CRA), a national interest group based in London claims that the rules at Tree Tops are annoying. The Children’s Right Alliance works to promote children’s human rights and to ensure that the government is committed in protecting rights of young people. Hence, this organization has the power to question governmental activities that would hurt the rights of children. In this case, the Children’s Right Alliance can argue that the stated goals of The Youth Support Act 2012 are not met due to the thoughtless practices of the Bangor City Council. As noted already, the Council is willing to fund only a complete academic year’s attendance at the youth club. In addition, children between the ages of 5 and 15 are the beneficiaries of this funding program. However, the Tree Tops provides after school recreational activities for young people aged between 11 and 16. As a result, majority of candidates like Pricilla attending the Tree Tops program cannot take advantage of the funding scheme declared by the City Council. Similarly, the Children’s Right Alliance may also point out the human rights violations at Tree Tops such as ban on wearing hijab. By addressing those issues, the Children’s Right Alliance can make certain that the young people’s right to freedom of religion is well protected. In addition, this approach may assist the Wales government to promote an awareness of children’s rights in the region. However, the Tree Tops and the Bangor City Council may defend CRA’s argument by pointing the fact that they strictly comply with the provisions of The Youth Support Act 2012. Conclusions Pricilla’s arguments are less likely to be approved by the Administrative Court. Clearly, Pricilla is not a beneficiary of The Youth Support Act 2012 because she is above the age of 14. Furthermore, the City Council has clearly stated that it will not allow anyone to enjoy the benefits of the funding scheme before the age of five and if the candidates turn fifteen within the academic year. Hence, the Administrative Court may rule in favor of Pricilla only if the court considers the ethical grounds of her argument. At the same time, claims of Amreen and Nabeel may be supported by the Administrative Court because it is a case of violation of constitutional rights. Wearing hijab is particularly important according to the Islamic faith and hence the Tree Tops’ decision to ban hijab will certainly hurt Amreen’r right to freedom of religion. Muslim community is minority in Wales and hence the court is more likely to pay particular attention to the protection of their rights. Furthermore, Tree Tops’ decision to ban hijab may lead to hatred between religions. Considering the necessity of religious harmony and social security, the Administrative Court may decide in favor of Amreen and Nabeel. Finally, the claims of Children’s Right Alliance also seem reasonable because many students do not actually obtain the benefits of funding scheme framed by the City Council. Since the UK government greatly emphasizes children’s rights, CRA’s argument may be supported. Bibliography Barnett, H. Constitutional and Administrative Law. Cavendish, 2002. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocols [11 and 14]. accessed 8 Aug 2013. The Youth Support Act 2012. 2.3. NUT guidelines. The Muslim Faith and School Uniform. Wearing the Hijab and other Islamic Dress in Schools. accessed 8 Aug 2013. Open Democracy. Free thinking for the world. accessed 8 Aug 2013. The rights and duties of women in Islam. accessed 8 Aug 2013. Read More