“The ‘balance point of human rights’ has been put to the test.”
With the extreme choice of a teacher at Seoi Elementary School in Seoul and the shooting riots at Sillim Station and Seohyeon Station, teachers’ rights, student human rights, and public interest and individual freedom emerged as topics, and there is talk that the balance of human rights has collapsed in various parts of society. It is a reflection that the social attempt to guarantee the rights of ‘B’ is rather threatening the fence of the community.
It has been a long time since the Seoi-cho incident, which triggered the discussion, moved into discussions on teacher rights and student human rights, regardless of the actual reason for the teacher’s extreme choice. The series of riots with deadly weapons in the downtown area are leading to voices calling for strengthening public power beyond strengthening inspections and expanding firearms response to heinous crimes.
Experts point out that the growing voice for finding a new balance point in human rights is a reaction to human rights discussions that have skewed to one side at some point. In other words, the bizarre situation in which even the perpetrators can shout loudly at the moment of human rights violations has been exposing the limits of human rights in our society, which have long been out of balance.
As a result, criticism began to emerge that the human rights ordinances of the six education offices that adopted student human rights ordinances, including those in Gyeonggi-do and Seoul, focused only on protecting students’ rights. Emphasize equal weight on responsibilities and obligations along with rights. It is pointed out that the Korean version of the Student Rights Ordinance, which lacks responsibility and obligations, predicted the collapse of today’s teaching authority from the time it took its first steps in 2010.
Seung Jae-hyun, a senior researcher at the Korea Criminal and Legal Policy Institute, said, “In the past, teachers were respected as ‘all in the military department,’ but as student human rights became more important and child abuse became a social issue, students’ responsibilities and duties disappeared in an instant and only human rights were emphasized in the classroom. “From this point on, it has become a situation where sanctions cannot be imposed even if the order of the community is not followed and the right to learn of other students or the right to teach is interfered with,” he said.
It is in a similar context that the government announced that it would strengthen police force, such as firearms and taser guns, after the ‘don’t ask me weapon riots’ that took place at Sillim Station in Seoul and Seohyeon Station in Bundang. Some people are concerned about the strengthening of public power, but it is a different situation than before that the public opinion that accepts and understands has grown, such as ‘I can accept the inconvenience as it is a measure to ensure safety’ and ‘If there is a terrorist threat abroad, I will unintentionally check it’. reflects
There are also voices pointing out institutional problems that have made it difficult for the police to respond vigorously to violent crimes. Lee Seung-woo, representative lawyer of the law firm, said, “The manual for executing public power is strict, so if you deviate even a little, you will be disadvantaged in personnel affairs or you will have to take civil and criminal responsibilities, and if you overreact, the problem will grow. “We need to watch the situation after announcing that we will expand the immunity for the use of firearms in the United States,” he said.
This is not the first time that human rights debates have been sparked. Even at the beginning of the Corona 19 incident three years ago, privacy violations and human rights issues were raised in the process of checking the movement of confirmed patients to prevent the spread of infection. At a videoconference in response to COVID-19 hosted by the United Nations at the time, Minister of Foreign Affairs Kang Kyung-wha said, “Private life is an important human right, but not an absolute right.” “he said.
“Forcible hospitalization for mental illness” vs “trampling on human rights”… Extreme confrontation with no ‘medicine’② Treatment of mentally ill patients neglected by the logic of ‘human rights’
The medical community and patient groups are in a tense tug-of-war over the ‘human rights of the mentally ill’. It is known that Choi Won-jong, who caused 1 death and 13 injuries at Seohyun Station in Bundang, was diagnosed with ‘schizoid personality disorder’ in 2020 but was not treated. The medical community argues that “even if forced (non-arbitrary) hospitalization is strengthened, treating mental illness first is ultimately to guarantee the patient’s right to treatment and human rights.” On the other hand, organizations for the mentally ill are raising their eyebrows, saying, “Forced hospitalization is an act of trampling on the human rights of patients.”
On the 9th, Professor Jo Seo-eun of the Department of Psychiatry at Gachon University Gil Hospital said in a telephone interview, “Since the revision of the Mental Health Welfare Act in May 2017, the threshold for compulsory hospitalization of mentally ill patients has increased, and the rate of forced hospitalization has decreased by about half.” At the time, the core of the revised Mental Health Welfare Act (the Act on Mental Health Promotion and Welfare Service Support for the Mental Illness) is ‘relieving the threshold for compulsory hospitalization’. In the case of protective hospitalization, which is the most common compulsory hospitalization, in the past, a patient could be forcibly hospitalized only with the hospitalization opinion of one psychiatrist, if the person responsible for protection (lineal blood relative or spouse) applied for it. However, according to the revised law, two psychiatric specialists and two guardians must agree to hospitalize a patient. One of the specialists must be a doctor belonging to a national or public psychiatric institution designated by the Minister of Health and Welfare.
In the past, ▶The patient has a serious mental illness that requires hospitalization (hospitalization required), or ▶The patient may harm the safety of the patient or others (risk of harm to himself/herself). could be hospitalized. Professor Lee Kun-seok of the Department of Psychiatry at Hanyang University Hospital explained, “It is a global trend that inpatient treatment is possible even if only one of these two is satisfied.” However, according to the law revised in May 2017, compulsory hospitalization (non-voluntary hospitalization) was possible only when “both” conditions were met. In addition, the revised law narrowed the scope of ‘mental illness’ to ‘patients with significant limitations in leading independent daily life due to delusions, hallucinations, thoughts, mood disorders, etc.’
After all, even if the symptoms of mental illness are severe, if the risk of harming others has not yet appeared or if it is ambiguous to judge, no treatment can be performed without the consent of the patient. Regarding this, Professor Lee Kun-seok said, “Before the revision of the law, if the symptoms of mental illness were severe, the risk of harm to oneself or other harm naturally increased, so even patients who did not yet have any harm to themselves or other harm could take preventive measures by inpatient treatment.” “However, after the law revision, “Even if the severity of the disease is severe, treatment cannot be forced without the patient’s consent, unless there is a risk of self-harm,” he explained. Professor Jo Seo-eun said, “There are many cases in which guardians bring patients to the hospital with difficulty, but cannot admit them and have to send them back.”
At the time, the background of the law revision was the ‘human rights guarantee’ of patients. In June of last year, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) recommended hospitals to take corrective action, calling it a ‘human rights violation’ for a guardian hospitalizing a mentally ill person without the consent of the person concerned (the mentally ill person) and extending the hospitalization period. In addition, the Human Rights Commission recommended the head of the hospital “to provide human rights education to staff so that ‘hospitalization with consent’ or ‘hospitalization under protection’ does not take place without the application of a mentally ill person.” Professor Lee Kun-seok said, “Under this legal system, there is no way for hospitals to take active measures if the risk of self-harm is not significant.” Didn’t it happen in an unexpected situation?” he asked.
According to the revised law, the length of hospitalization of patients is also limited. In order to hospitalize a patient for more than 2 weeks, the ‘2- week diagnosis hospitalization’ and ‘external (national, public and designated hospital) additional specialist diagnosis’ systems were introduced to obtain consent from an external specialist, and the ‘hospitalization suitability review committee’ was newly established. A second diagnosis by a doctor must be made within 2 weeks of hospitalization to be hospitalized for more than 2 weeks. In order to be hospitalized for more than 1 month, it is possible to receive a notification of suitability for hospitalization from the hospitalization suitability review committee within 1 month after admission.
As not only the hospitalization process but also the extension of hospitalization became more complicated, the rate of compulsory hospitalization inevitably decreased. Professor Cho said, “The recommended inpatient treatment period is different for each mental disorder and patient condition, but it is effective to be treated for 2 to 4 weeks,” but “according to the revised law, hospitalization for more than two weeks is difficult enough to require multiple steps.”
In response, the stance of groups for the mentally ill countered that “forced hospitalization is a clear violation of human rights.” These groups point out that the term ‘mentally ill’ is wrong. Shin Seok-cheol, chairman of the Korea Association of Mentally Disabled People, insisted, “It is correct to say ‘mentally disabled person’ or ‘participant’ rather than a mentally ill person.” The group’s position is that there is no risk of harming others just because you have a mental illness.
In-deuk Ahn, who committed the riot and murder in 2019, was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and Won-jong Choi in the Seohyun station case was diagnosed with schizophrenic personality disorder, but was not treated. Regarding this, general manager Lee Hangyul added, “If they had been treated, the symptoms could have been alleviated more.”
He argued that there is also a problem with the detention process at the forced hospitalization stage. Director Lee said, “There are not a few cases where a private emergency transport agency enters the house wearing shoes, puts on a leash or handcuffs and drags the patient out.” They regard it as a big deal and turn it into justification for hospitalization,” he complained.
In addition, after being admitted to a psychiatric hospital, patients are suffering from confiscation of cell phones, bans on visits and going out, and the uncertainty of not knowing when they will be discharged makes them reluctant to receive inpatient treatment, according to patient groups. Director Lee said, “If you are indignant at this, you are forcibly taken to an isolation room called a stable room and often get tied up. Arms and legs, as well as your neck, are lined up.” His appeal is that there are places where 20 to 30 people can lie down and sleep in a bedless room, or 50 patients can use only two shower heads.
In this situation, the Ministry of Justice announced on the 4th that it would consider introducing the ‘judicial admission system’. The judicial hospitalization system is a system that hospitalizes severely mentally ill patients according to a judge’s decision. Hospitalization of mentally ill patients is based on voluntary hospitalization according to the patient’s will, and if the patient refuses hospitalization, non-voluntary hospitalization procedures may be carried out. Regarding this, Lee Hangyul, head of the headquarters, criticized it, saying, “The way the government wants it is the actions that international conventions say not to do.” He said, “The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been advising the Korean government from the past not to treat mentally ill patients forcibly,” he said. did.
※Mental illness is preventable and can be overcome through treatment. If you have mental health difficulties or need help, you can receive expert counseling through the Mental Health Welfare Center. For more information, check the National Mental Health Information Portal or the Blue Touch website.
A teacher beaten by a student… ‘Bangtan’ revises human rights ordinance③Student human rights ordinance that puts ‘rights’ first without responsibility
The student human rights ordinance stipulates the right of students to be protected from discrimination and violence. However, on the contrary, it is criticized for fanning the fall of teaching authority. The government and the ruling party decided to revise the student human rights ordinance following the tragic incident of a teacher at Seoi Elementary School in Seoul.
According to the education community on the 9th, out of 17 cities and provinces across the country, 7 places, including Seoul, Gyeonggi, Incheon, Chungnam, Gwangju, Jeonbuk, and Jeju, are currently enforcing student (school) human rights ordinances. Among them, Seoul, Gyeonggi, Gwangju, and Jeonbuk have expressed their intention to review the revision. Incheon changed its name to ‘School Member Human Rights Ordinance’.
Details vary by city and province, but key provisions include guaranteeing students’ privacy and prohibiting corporal punishment. The human rights ordinance was created to ensure equality in the human rights of students, escaping from the violent and vertical relationship between teachers and students in the past. However, the use of abusive language and assault by students also resulted in side effects that teachers had to accept. According to the results of an online survey of teachers released by the Ministry of Education on the 3rd, 23.8% (16,037 respondents) of the question asking ‘why the number of cases of infringement on teacher rights are increasing’ (three multiple choices) answered, ‘Compared to teacher rights, students’ human rights are too much emphasis’.
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education Lee Ju-ho announced the need to revise the student human rights ordinance following the death of a second-year teacher at Seoi Elementary School in Seocho-gu, Seoul at the end of last month.
The part pointed out as a blind spot in the human rights ordinance in the education world is the part about the student’s ‘responsibility’. New York City’s ‘Student Bill Of Rights’, which served as the basis for the student human rights ordinance enacted for the first time in Gyeonggi-do in 2010, clearly and clearly specifies the rights and responsibilities of students, whereas in Korea, the ordinances in Korea do not balance responsibilities and duties . that the weight is tilted to one side. If you look at the New York City Student Bill of Rights, there are five major categories of student rights: the right to receive a free public school education, the right to freedom of expression and personality, the right to due process, and the additional rights of students over the age of 18. . It is not much different from the student human rights ordinance in Korea, which enumerates the right not to be discriminated against, the right to be free from violence, and the freedom to express opinions. However, the last five paragraphs of the New York City Bill of Rights deal only with student responsibilities. At the beginning of Section 5, it is stated that students can take the rights specified in the Bill of Rights on the premise of responsible behavior, and that if they violate some of their responsibilities, they can be disciplined according to the regulations. The 24 specific behavioral guidelines include content that students must attend school on time, strive not to violate other students’ right to learn, and refrain from denying or violating the rights of others.
Fairfax County Board of Education, Virginia, USA ‘Student Rights and Responsibilities Guide’ is similar to this. According to the guide, not only do students’ rights and responsibilities bear equal weight, but the rules apply both inside and outside of school, in an online classroom environment, and on the way to and from school. In particular, parents must submit a signed paper at the beginning of the semester stating that they have read and received this guidebook. In-school intervention guidance methods and disciplinary procedures, such as counseling to educate students who interfere with learning, change of seat, stay after school, temporary deprivation of privileges to participate in school activities, and temporary exclusion from class, are also provided.
On the other hand, our country’s student human rights ordinances do not have specific provisions on the student’s duty and mission. In the case of the Seoul Metropolitan Government, Article 4 (Responsibilities) of Chapter 5, Article 51 includes ‘Students shall not infringe on the human rights of others, including teachers and other students’ and ‘School norms established with cooperation in school education and participation of students’ Only two lines, such as ‘must respect the
Similarly, Gyeonggi Province stipulates student responsibilities with the sentence, ‘Students must learn human rights, protect their own human rights, and strive to respect the human rights of others, including the principal.’ However, in 2021, ‘restrictions on the human rights of students may be limited to cases necessary for the purpose of education within the minimum scope that does not infringe on the essential content of human rights, and may be made by school regulations such as school regulations in which students participate in the enactment or revision’ was newly established.
In response, local governments and education offices have also expressed their intention to revise the ordinance in the direction of specifying student responsibilities. Gyeonggi-do plans to add content to Article 4 (Responsibilities) Paragraph 3 to the effect that ‘students and guardians must respect other students’ right to learn and teachers’ educational activities for the right to receive education’. Article 8 of the ‘Right to Learning’ regulation will also be supplemented with the content that other students’ right to learn must be guaranteed. The Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education is also preparing an amendment centering on student accountability.
The Incheon Metropolitan Office of Education and the Jeonbuk-do Office of Education are implementing the ‘Ordinance on Promoting Human Rights of School Members’ and the ‘Ordinance on Human Rights in Jeonbuk Education’, respectively, which broaden the scope of protection to students and teachers. In addition, it is a position that we will come up with measures to protect faculty members.
There is also an opinion that it is urgent to prepare a separate ordinance for the protection of teaching rights. According to Justice Party lawmaker Lee Eun-joo’s office, only 10 of 17 provincial and provincial offices of education nationwide have ordinances on the protection of teacher rights. Seven offices of education, including Seoul, Busan, Daejeon, Sejong, Chungbuk, and Gyeongbuk, do not have related ordinances. The Justice Party Policy Committee predicted that “even without an ordinance, it is possible to protect the teaching rights according to the statute, but if there is an ordinance, policy stability, interest in the education office, and business momentum can be further enhanced.”
‘Another World’ Human Rights Commission… “Human rights violation” when arrested for drunkenness, the legal judgment was different④ The responsibility of the Human Rights Commission is
Recently, as cases of abuse of rights with human rights at the forefront are becoming more frequent, criticisms are raised that the National Human Rights Commission (HRC) may have contributed to this atmosphere. It is said that it has given some people the wrong signal that the basic rights of the individual must be given unconditional priority over the maintenance of public safety and order.
A representative example is the Human Rights Commission’s judgment on the police’s inspection and search. In 2010, the Human Rights Commission judged that unintentional inspections that did not strictly follow procedures were a violation of human rights, and since then, unintentional inspections have not been conducted in practice for a while.
At the time, the police raised concerns that “the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission, which did not take into account the urgency of the scene, would significantly reduce police security activities.” As a result, it was no different than a means to prevent a weapon rampage in advance. Recently, as an unfortunate incident continued and public anxiety increased, the police resumed ‘selective inspection’ (unreasonable inspection) in accordance with legal procedures only for those who show suspicious behavior in areas where people gather.
◇The police arrested the drunk who tried to hit him… Human Rights Commission “Infringement of Human Rights”
There are not a few cases where the judgments and decisions of the Human Rights Commission have caused controversy. In 2020, the Human Rights Commission recommended that the police officer who arrested the drunkard be punished for ‘violating human rights’. However, a year later, the court judged that the NHRCK’s recommendation for disciplinary action was unreasonable, saying, “It is questionable whether a police officer should be스포츠토토 disciplined for human rights violations, and it is questionable whether a drunkard can be concluded as a victim of human rights violations.”
At the time, a police officer was dispatched after receiving a report that a drunken person was asleep in an apartment parking lot. The drunk was lying next to a parked car, and when the police tried to pull him up, he cursed. As a result of CCTV analysis, when the drunk man raised his left hand, the police pushed him away, and the drunk man tried to hit the policeman with his left hand, but the police avoided it.
Police officers at the scene arrested Mr. A, a drunk man, on charges of obstruction of justice. Mr. A filed a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, claiming that he had been violated by the police. It is acknowledged that human rights have been violated through illegal arrest.”
At the time, the court said, “Mr. A was arguing in a way that gradually increased in intensity, and the danger was growing.”
◇ Even in girls’ high schools that gave penalty points to students who permed and dyed, the Human Rights Commission “revised”
It was also controversial to point out girls’ high schools that banned perm and dyeing and imposed penalty points when they violated it. In October of last year, the Child Rights Committee of the Human Rights Commission recommended B girls’ high school to revise the ‘student life regulations’ related to hair to the extent that it does not excessively restrict students’ right to express their individuality and right to self-determination.
B Girls’ High School responded, “The reason why we have a rule not to perm or dye is to consider the students’ concerns about derailment due to hair liberalization and the difficulty of providing guidance on excessive perms and dyeing.” The Human Rights Commission said that it was a vague guess that regulating students’ hair would prevent derailment, achieve academic achievement, and provide guidance and protection for private life outside of school.
Field teachers complained that this recommendation was far from reality. This is because in a classroom where corporal punishment is prohibited, penalty points are seen as the only means of educating students. Mr. C, who works as a homeroom teacher at a high school in Gyeonggi-do, said, “There is no way for teachers to control students except for penalty points.”
In some cases, the Human Rights Commission’s standards for gender equality have been criticized for being far from the general public’s perception. In December of last year, the Human Rights Commission judged that an Nonghyup IT center that only male employees had to work night shifts was justified. “In the case of night shifts, there is one patrol, but the rest of the work is similar to day shifts, and most of the work is done inside the night shift room, so it is difficult to see it as particularly arduous work.”
