Thanks for pointing that out, Valerie. Hadn't thought I'd that angle—we normally refer to Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
Article 6
Consent
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
It's an evil in 3 dimensions. They had no authority. The teachers imposed "rules" upon the children and the children effectively, being children, policed themselves.
As a parent of a 6 year old, the choice we faced was: comply to the self harm, or be mobbed (with all the mental anxiety that entails).
Children automatically want to "fit in" especially at school, and especially at a new school.
We were caught between a rock - a senseless and obviously dangerous demand the child cover vital air passages with a mask; - and a hard place, where the child was not mature enough to handle the mental anxiety imposed by the mob, for doing the "right thing" and refusing the mask.
Absolutely, Cygnet, and on top of that we still want accountability for those responsible for this abuse, if only for their punishments to be held up as a deterrent for it never to be repeated, as you so rightly assert.
Forgive me if you’re already aware of the following. Medical treatment is defined in section 47 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 as any procedure or treatment designed to promote or safeguard physical or mental health. As such, mask wearing should be understood as a medical treatment and subjected to the same safeguards and informed consent as any other medical treatment.
The age of legal consent to medical treatment is 16, aside from the unusual circumstances where Gillick competence applies, with associated safeguards of course. Given the significant risks associated with mask wearing and absence of benefit, fully informed parental consent should be obtained before expecting any child to restrict their breathing by wearing a mask. Considering the highly persuasive and coercive nature of peer pressure in schools, it highly unlikely that any child (or parent?) under 16 (or over?) will have the capacity to make a fully informed decision about consenting to this highly emotive medical treatment. In the event of a child being expected to wear a mask in the absence of informed consent as outlined above, child protection procedures should be initiated.
I completely agree with your undeniable legal assessment, and am wondering whether based on that assessment criminal charges can be brought against anyone involved in forcing children to wear masks in Scotland. If so, I will raise a GiveSendGo appeal to fund a private criminal charge against the worst offender in Dumfries and Galloway.
Many thanks to both for your comments. As I've mentioned before, it is also a breach of rights recognised and protected under the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights article 6.
We know that it happened, despite their denial. And I personally know a 16 year-old young lady who stood her ground and suffered verbal abuse from multiple teaching staff, eventually being told to leave school and never come back until she wore a mask, which she refused to do and so was a de facto expulsion.
This is from enforcement of a policy they say never took place...
Sadly, as far criminal charges goes, that lady moved on and didn't want any fuss about it, so that avenue was closed. If you hear of anyone who does want to take this forward then a GiveSendGo appeal would be a great idea.
There's also another angle to consider—that of professional misconduct from both the heads of both the education and health & safety departments, because their woefully inadequate risk assessments did not take into account so much as a single risk of physical or mental harm to children from being forced into masks all day. If you can think of an appropriate avenue with that in mind it may present an opportunity.
This is despite all evidence sent to them about potential harms, which they just ignored. Ironically they subsequently put carbon dioxide detectors in classrooms but were not at all concerned about the same thing when it came to masking children.
They are an absolute disgrace— the fact that these people are still in a job being undeniable proof of that fact.
Thanks for the detailed reply. You made a good point there that only the wronged party can bring a private criminal prosecution. I had imagined that anyone can do it, but after reading your reply I investigated the matter further and discovered that not only is the law unclear on this subject, but that the only successful private criminal prosecutions were by the wronged parties. There is also the matter of the corruption in the judiciary who will find whatever excuse they can to dismiss an inconvenient case and “Lack of Standing” is the one they invariably use.
Oh yes, were definitely up against a "justice" system every bit as corrupt as those who thought they could subdue other people's children into masks. It's always going to be difficult asking one head of the hydra to attack another.
We had hoped there'd be enough people up in arms about this that there would be a class action against those responsible, instead there was nothing but lame capitulation and compliance. Sadly it would seem that the spirit of the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath died with the people who wrote it.
Thanks for pointing that out, Valerie. Hadn't thought I'd that angle—we normally refer to Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
Article 6
Consent
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
Praying people do not tolerate this again! The harms caused chills my soul 💔
In essence Scots are fighting for the soul of their nation. At present the population is in denial of all that transpired from 2020.
Absolutely, and the industrial-scale abuse of children is the nadir, our low point, the epitome of that struggle.
Really shocking! The gov and media (TV+print press) would prefer this to be out of sight out of mind. ''Protecting the vulnerable.'' https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newexclusivelockdown-harms-on-vulnerable?utm_source=publication-search
It's an evil in 3 dimensions. They had no authority. The teachers imposed "rules" upon the children and the children effectively, being children, policed themselves.
As a parent of a 6 year old, the choice we faced was: comply to the self harm, or be mobbed (with all the mental anxiety that entails).
Children automatically want to "fit in" especially at school, and especially at a new school.
We were caught between a rock - a senseless and obviously dangerous demand the child cover vital air passages with a mask; - and a hard place, where the child was not mature enough to handle the mental anxiety imposed by the mob, for doing the "right thing" and refusing the mask.
The experience has scarred us all.
It must NEVER be repeated.
Absolutely, Cygnet, and on top of that we still want accountability for those responsible for this abuse, if only for their punishments to be held up as a deterrent for it never to be repeated, as you so rightly assert.
Forgive me if you’re already aware of the following. Medical treatment is defined in section 47 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 as any procedure or treatment designed to promote or safeguard physical or mental health. As such, mask wearing should be understood as a medical treatment and subjected to the same safeguards and informed consent as any other medical treatment.
The age of legal consent to medical treatment is 16, aside from the unusual circumstances where Gillick competence applies, with associated safeguards of course. Given the significant risks associated with mask wearing and absence of benefit, fully informed parental consent should be obtained before expecting any child to restrict their breathing by wearing a mask. Considering the highly persuasive and coercive nature of peer pressure in schools, it highly unlikely that any child (or parent?) under 16 (or over?) will have the capacity to make a fully informed decision about consenting to this highly emotive medical treatment. In the event of a child being expected to wear a mask in the absence of informed consent as outlined above, child protection procedures should be initiated.
I completely agree with your undeniable legal assessment, and am wondering whether based on that assessment criminal charges can be brought against anyone involved in forcing children to wear masks in Scotland. If so, I will raise a GiveSendGo appeal to fund a private criminal charge against the worst offender in Dumfries and Galloway.
Many thanks to both for your comments. As I've mentioned before, it is also a breach of rights recognised and protected under the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights article 6.
We know that it happened, despite their denial. And I personally know a 16 year-old young lady who stood her ground and suffered verbal abuse from multiple teaching staff, eventually being told to leave school and never come back until she wore a mask, which she refused to do and so was a de facto expulsion.
This is from enforcement of a policy they say never took place...
Sadly, as far criminal charges goes, that lady moved on and didn't want any fuss about it, so that avenue was closed. If you hear of anyone who does want to take this forward then a GiveSendGo appeal would be a great idea.
There's also another angle to consider—that of professional misconduct from both the heads of both the education and health & safety departments, because their woefully inadequate risk assessments did not take into account so much as a single risk of physical or mental harm to children from being forced into masks all day. If you can think of an appropriate avenue with that in mind it may present an opportunity.
This is despite all evidence sent to them about potential harms, which they just ignored. Ironically they subsequently put carbon dioxide detectors in classrooms but were not at all concerned about the same thing when it came to masking children.
They are an absolute disgrace— the fact that these people are still in a job being undeniable proof of that fact.
Thanks for the detailed reply. You made a good point there that only the wronged party can bring a private criminal prosecution. I had imagined that anyone can do it, but after reading your reply I investigated the matter further and discovered that not only is the law unclear on this subject, but that the only successful private criminal prosecutions were by the wronged parties. There is also the matter of the corruption in the judiciary who will find whatever excuse they can to dismiss an inconvenient case and “Lack of Standing” is the one they invariably use.
Oh yes, were definitely up against a "justice" system every bit as corrupt as those who thought they could subdue other people's children into masks. It's always going to be difficult asking one head of the hydra to attack another.
We had hoped there'd be enough people up in arms about this that there would be a class action against those responsible, instead there was nothing but lame capitulation and compliance. Sadly it would seem that the spirit of the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath died with the people who wrote it.