55
NI education: Girls given right to wear trousers to school
(www.bbc.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2026
55 points (100.0% liked)
United Kingdom
6927 readers
911 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Seems like a weird line of reasoning
It's one of those foundational "where do our rights come from" debates.
Are rights: A) Granted by a government B) Derived from nature and recognized by the People
I'd it's (A), then they can be taken away by a change in the law. They're just you're because some monarch or bureaucrat decides you no longer should have it.
If it's (B) then you always have the right and the monarchs or bureaucrats denying it to you is an assault on your human rights.
While a trousers in school debate isn't exactly life or death, I see the title's wording as suspect. It says the girls are now "granted" the right, which means the government decides if you have rights. That's (A), while I would hope an article writer would want (B), and say the girls' right to wear trousers has been "recognized" by the courts, which means it should never be taken away without the removal being an act of supppression of human rights.
Language and fraking matters here.
Given you recognise it's a foundational debate, why would you expect a journalist to have the same view as you on it?
Anyway I think it's pretty clear a lot of rights only make sense in a social system - there's no inherent natural right to things that don't exist in a state of nature.
Given that i had my right to live and work in the majority of Europe taken from me against my will and now half our political parties are looking to strip me of my human rights I'd say it's pretty self evident that it's A and governments can take them away.
Even with (B) changing cultural attitudes can lead to rights being revoked without being viewed as suppression. The line between something being recognised by the people and granted by the government is a fuzzy one.