Brazilian judge sentences parents to prison for homeschooling their daughters
adfinternational.org
adfinternational.org
The court also concluded that because the girls, aged 15 and 11, did not like “trap” or “sertanejo” (folk) music, their home curriculum had also failed to properly educate them in cultural diversity, despite the fact that they are both accomplished pianists and speak multiple languages."
I found some Brazilian coverage. https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/vida-e-cidadania/juiz-que-co... says something somewhat different than the text you copied:
"Ainda segundo a defesa, entre os argumentos usados pelo magistrado estaria a fala de uma das adolescentes que disse não gostar de estilos musicais como funk e sertanejo. A afirmação teria sido interpretada como demonstração de “suposta discriminação e preconceito na educação” domiciliar ministrada pelos pais, que foram condenados criminalmente."
That is:
"According to the defense, one of the arguments used by the judge was a statement made by one of the teenage girls, who said she did not like musical genres such as funk and sertanejo. The statement was reportedly interpreted as evidence of “alleged discrimination and prejudice in the home education” provided by her parents, who were convicted of a criminal offense."
This is a claim made by the defense attorney in the appeal, and was not, from what I can tell, a conclusion determined by the court.
I was not able to find anyone linking to the court's judgement.
Also:
"Os dois foram sentenciados a 50 dias de detenção em regime semiaberto, pena posteriormente substituída por medidas alternativas." https://claudiodantas.com.br/filha-de-casal-condenado-por-ho...
The 50 days in semi-open detention was later replaced by alternative measures.
From what I can tell,
"Regime fechado" (closed regime) means the sentence in a maximum or medium security establishment;
"Regime semiaberto" (semi-open) means its in an agricultural, industrial or similar establishment colony
"Regime aberto" (open) is in a sheltered house or appropriate establishment.
I can't think of a US English equivalent to "regime semiaberto", but it seems less than what we think of with "jail". Like, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime_semiaberto links to an article describing how in the US "Programas tais como o regime semiaberto têm diminuído no país, não existindo as chamadas "saidinhas" temporárias, tão comuns no Brasil." ("Programs such as the semi-open prison system have been on the decline [in the US], and the so-called temporary "day passes," which are so common in Brazil, no longer exist")
Or to put it in other words, it's being ignored by all other news sites. One would think treating children as property of the state, and requiring explicit indoctrination in "tolerance and diversity", would warrant more attention from our media that is so concerned with authoritarianism.
> one of the arguments used by the judge was a statement made by one of the teenage girls [..] This is a claim made by the defense attorney in the appeal, and was not, from what I can tell, a conclusion determined by the court.
So it was not a conclusion, but the reasoning used to reach the conclusion. I don't see how that's any better.
Like how the parents didn't teach legally required topics, and like how the judge supposedly ruled based on the kid's dislike of funk and sertanejo was a claim from the family, and apparently not based on the ruling.
The article said what they didn't teach, and that the court didn't like it. That those topics were legally required was implied - it's certainly how I interpreted it, despite no explicit line saying "oh by the way these topics are legally required/not required". In other words, the article didn't state it explicitly either way, the reasonable disambiguation is the correct one, and yet you're treating the absence of explicit disambiguation as a "significant" factual error.
> dislike of funk and sertanejo was a claim from the family, and apparently not based on the ruling.
No, according to you, it was "a claim made by the defense attorney in the appeal". That's a lot more trustworthy than just a random claim. Presumably lying (about things easily verifiable from a court transcript) in a legal filing is not looked kindly upon by courts, so it's reasonable to believe it.
> and apparently not based on the ruling.
The exact words were: The court also concluded that because the girls, aged 15 and 11, did not like “trap” or “sertanejo” (folk) music
It doesn't say it was part of the ruling, only that it led to the ruling (since the judge stated it as a negative during court proceedings). I agree the wording could have been better, but as it can give the impression those words were in the actual final written judgment, not just the cause for that judgment. But that's a distinction without a difference.
The only error (or rather, significant omission) is that the article should have mentioned the jail term was "limited release" or whatever modified sentence they got. That's it, and that's apparently enough to entirely dismiss reporting when you'd rather people just shut up about it. By this bar you could dismiss nearly any story from the BBC or the New York Times too.
No one links to the Brazilian press coverage, which was not hard to find. No one links to the court documents (I'm assuming it's public). What little supporting evidence they gave comes from the statements from the family/defense.
Can you tell me what "tolerance and diversity" means, in regards to the judgement? Does that phrase come from the judge, from the law, or from the parents? It seems perfectly chosen to cause a knee-jerk reaction from anyone who hates DEI. But what does it mean in a Brazilian context and in the context of this court case?
Your viewpoint seems to be that we should treat children as property of their parents, and only parents can decide what their kids may learn. You seem to be against compulsory education of any sort, and believe that the state should be prohibited from enforcing any educational standards which are contrary to the wishes of the parents.
Do I have that right?
Of all the stories I've read on the BBC, and I've read quite a few, I can count the number of times they linked to court documents on one hand, and have five fingers left over. They're not an exception. Nice tactical skepticism.
> Can you tell me what "tolerance and diversity" means, in regards to the judgement? Does that phrase come from the judge, from the law, or from the parents? It seems perfectly chosen to cause a knee-jerk reaction from anyone who hates DEI. But what does it mean in a Brazilian context and in the context of this court case?
Reasonable questions. Maybe if all our "reliable", "trustworthy" media, watchdogs against authoritarianism, weren't ignoring the case, we might have some answers to them.
> You seem to be against compulsory education of any sort, and believe that the state should be prohibited from enforcing any educational standards which are contrary to the wishes of the parents. Do I have that right?
"Don't point out problematic cases unless you have a fully formed alternative proposal." No, I'm not against enforcing "any" standards. But explicit ideological indoctrination is a far cry from "any".
Nice tactical skepticism to point to a minor part of my statement as if that were the totality of it.
Are the sites which are promoting this article "reliable" and "trustworthy"? Why are they omitting facts like how the decision for 10 days of semi-open jail was rescinded?
I do not understand how you can call this decision "authoritarianism", except if you have the extreme belief that any sort of compulsory education, or state control of educational standards which can override the parents, to be authoritarian.
Since you do not, what actually is authoritarian here?
We have explicit ideological indoctrination all the time. In the US we were indoctrinated into US ideology, which is why we talk about "our founding fathers", while the English are indoctrinated to be subjects of His/Her majesty.
It's only when people don't like something that they call it "explicit ideological indoctrination".
Do you think requiring kids to have age appropriate sexual education to be an explicit ideological indoctrination? Do you think that requirement is authoritarian?
If the parents refuse to follow the law, as the case here, should they not be punished by the court?