Lord Clive Soley has introduced a bill in Britain’s House of Lords, H.L. 11, which would impose dramatic restrictions on English and Welsh parents who choose to educate their children at home.

If passed, Lord Soley’s bill would require these homeschooling parents to register with the local authorities, and to submit their children to regular educational, physical, and emotional assessments. The details and implementation of those assessments would be overseen by the Secretary of State.

This would completely rewrite British law on home education. Government officials in the United Kingdom currently have no formal authority over home educators—the law simply states that children should go to school or be “educated otherwise.”

H.L. 11 raises the specter of the infamous 2009 Badman report, which has often been cited by critics of homeschool freedom to support their demands for repressive regulations.

As we reported in 2009, Graham Badman’s “Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England” proposed that homeschooling families be subjected to home visits by government officials. These officials would be empowered to question the children and determine whether the family’s home education program was suitable.

Homeschooling Autonomy at Risk

Fortunately, Lord Soley’s proposal is unlikely to become law any time soon. But many British home education leaders warn that the introduction of the legislation must be taken seriously.

On a Facebook page for those who oppose H.L. 11, support group leader Mike Woods wrote:

The consensus is that there is no cause for panic. The bill remains unlikely to proceed to law as it is a Private Member’s Bill brought by two Labour peers. It does not currently have the support of the government nor, apparently the Labour Party. Although [sic] a report that was issued on the morning of 4/7/17, by England’s Children’s Commissioner, about missing children, seems to have some relevance. It’s possible the bill was timed to coincide with the reports an attempt to have it adopted by the Government.

Woods also claimed that the legislation, if passed, “would mean an end to unschooling and autonomous education.” He explained that the bill would “fundamentally disrupt the relationship between parents and children” by requiring compulsory registration, mandatory visits by government officials including mandatory interviews with children and parents, mandatory testing of children, and supervised lessons.

Gill Robbins of the Christians in Education blog wrote that the bill “is part of the softening process, a piece in the jigsaw which is designed to remove a parent’s right to educate their child as they think best. And the consequences are likely to be far reaching.

Global Repercussions

As written, U.K. law leads the world in respecting the rights of families to educate their children at home without undue interference from the government. Passing H.L. 11 would be a dramatic step backwards for freedom and for families, with repercussions far beyond the U.K.

The global homeschooling movement is aware of this attack and will be working together to help British home educating families fight it.

Peter Stock, the president of HSLDA Canada, said he was concerned that a step backward in Britain could affect homeschoolers in Canada.

Lord Soley’s anti-parental rights bill is a ‘solution’ in search of a problem…..In the face of the overwhelming evidence that homeschooling promotes academic excellence, Lord Soley would strip parents of their authority and impose state control over home education, even imposing invasive home inspections. We look to Britain as the birthplace of our liberties: please do not allow this totalitarian measure to move forward.

Gerald Huebner, the chairman of the Board of HSLDA Canada, is concerned as well. As he put it:

Canadian home educators are very concerned about the proposed legislative changes to education laws in Britain. The move to force home educators to register and seek permission to educate their own children, along with intrusive assessments, is a clear infringement of the human rights of parents. Home educators around the world have seen the current British home education regulations as a model of government respecting parental human rights, but these proposed changes now threaten these human rights globally.

Russian homeschooling leader Irina Shamolina said that H.L. 11’s philosophy is unpleasantly close to that of the former Soviet Union, which she experienced as a child:

We in Russia are shocked by the totalitarian spirit of the approach the government of GB is taking in treating the natural right of the parents to raise and educate their children the way parents prefer to do it. The situation is taking place in the country which proclaims itself to be a model of a true democracy!

Polish homeschooling leader Marek Budajczak was also deeply critical of the U.K. proposal, saying:

There are two opposite political mentalities in Europe: the British one (inspiring citizens’ freedom) and the continental one (of Prussian origin). Changing legislation on home education in England and Wales would equate expelling fundamental parents’ rights in favor of statism. We in Poland know the destructive consequences of the last one. England shouldn’t become a secondary Europe; they should be faithful to their own political heritage.

I agree with Mr. Budajczak. Britain has a strong heritage of political freedom—and that includes the freedom of parents to raise and educate their children without undue interference from the government. It was the British legal philosopher John Locke (an influence on our own American system of government) who said that “nature grants instruction solely to parental power.

Britain needs to preserve that freedom for its parents, now more than ever. That’s why HSLDA is honored to stand with our British friends in opposing H.L. 11.

Copyright © 2018, HSLDA–All rights reserved.

On September 17, 1787 on the final day of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was approached by a woman as he walked out of Independence Hall.

“Well Doctor, what have we got– a republic, or a monarchy?” she asked.

It was a burning question on everyone’s mind: what form of government would the Constitutional delegates establish for the new country?

Franklin didn’t hesitate. “A republic– if you can keep it.”

(The exchange was noted by Maryland delegate James McHenry and included in the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787.)

Franklin’s answer spoke volumes.

The Constitutional Convention had just ended, and it had been a bitter four months as the delegates fought and argued over every single word in the draft.

Factions had developed. Some delegates wanted a federal government with absolute power. Others wanted fewer guaranteed liberties for individuals.

Franklin knew that the representative government he had worked so hard to establish was incredibly fragile, and that it could easily slip away.

It was the same fight two years later when the 1st United States Congress fought over whether or not to establish a Bill of Rights.

As one delegate wrote, “Bill of Rights– useful, but not essential.”

Once again, after months of bitter arguments, Congress finally reached a compromise in September 1789, approving ten Constitutional amendments that guaranteed certain freedoms for the people.

More than two centuries later it’s clear that most of what they worked to achieve has completely changed.

The First Amendment, which ensures that Congress can make no law restricting freedom of speech, press, religion, and peaceable assembly, has become almost a punch line.

Ironically the greatest assault on Free Speech today doesn’t even come from government, but from university students who protest against any ideas they find offensive.

Violence on university campuses is now common as students come out of their Safe Spaces to physically obstruct and violently impede controversial speakers.

Any statement that doesn’t conform to their very narrow agenda is now considered hate speech.

And it’s the students themselves who want any sign of dissent banned, and more mandatory indoctrination of their newspeak ideology.

Then there’s the Second Amendment, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

This one seems to be under fire on a regular basis, with mainstream media from Rolling Stone to Vanity Fair calling for its outright repeal.

The Third Amendment guarantees that no soldier shall be quartered in any home without the consent of the owner.

This seems almost a quaint, obsolete historical reference at this point given that the US military hasn’t had to be housed among the civilian population… ever.

So, OK, great. The Third Amendment is still in-tact.

Then there’s the Fourth Amendment, which ensures “the Right of the People to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

Forget it. The federal government spends tens of billions of dollars each year to illegally spy on EVERYONE, including Americans and American allies. This one is a total joke.

The Fifth Amendment is a big one.

It ensures that no one can be held to answer for a crime, including a felony, without grand jury indictment.

This protection died a few years ago when Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which authorized the military detention of US citizens on US soil, no due process required.

The Fifth Amendment also famously protects against self-incrimination, ensuring that an individual cannot be called as a witness against himself.

This provision is also gone, considering that legal precedent now exists for police to force you to give up your mobile phone or computer password.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees due process, that in a criminal trial, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.”

This is now a complete farce given the widespread use of top-secret FISA courts, military detention facilities, and drone-strike assassinations.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial if there’s a dispute over property that exceeds $20.

Now, the $20 threshold might be a little bit outdated (not that there’s any inflation!)

But considering that the government has stolen billions of dollars worth property from Americans through Civil Asset Forfeiture in recent years, all without a trial, it seems the Seventh Amendment isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

Then there’s the Eight Amendment, which protects against “cruel and unusual punishment.”

I thought about this one the other day when I was walking through the terminal at DFW International Airport.

A sign caught my eye that as prominently displayed on an emergency exit door, warning passers-by that opening the door was a violation of the law and subject to up to one year in prison.

I was dumbfounded. A year in prison for opening a door?

People go to jail and do hard time for smoking certain plants (but not others), failing to file tax forms, and a number of completely obscure and innocuous crimes.

There were four federal crimes when the Constitution was ratified. Today there are thousands. On any given day you and I probably commit several of them without even knowing. And each comes with absolutely insane penalties.

The reality is that you cannot even apply for a passport anymore in the Land of the Free without being threatened with fines and imprisonment.

Last were the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which were supposed to limit the power of the federal government in favor of the states and the people.

Those went out the window a LONG time ago, especially after 9/11.

Look, don’t get me wrong: I’m not suggesting that America is some vicious, brutal dictatorship. It’s not.

But anyone who has the courage to be honest and objective can see the obvious decay.

Benjamin Franklin’s warning is coming true. And the trend is accelerating.

Copyright © 2017, Simon Black Founder, SovereignMan.com