Part Four:

Older Children

Starting up - introductory activities

"Imagine that you have discovered a new country, where no one has lived before, and where there are no laws and no rules. You and the other members of your group will be the settlers in this new land. You do not know what social position you will have in the new country."

"In our modern world we all have access to more information than ever before. For most of us, this information comes through the media, and especially via the news. Everyday, TV screens and newspapers are filled with situations and stories which are hopeful, tragic, happy, sad, simple or complex. Usually, we look at the terrible news stories and feel powerless. However, by looking again, using the ideas of human rights, we can see patterns of success, where rights are protected and acted upon, and patterns of problems, where rights are denied."

"Imagine that you are going on a camping trip with a group of friends. Someone has told you about a wonderful location for a camp, a clearing in the woods near a lake, far from civilization. You have been planning together for several weeks, and finally the weekend arrives. After a long journey, you arrive at the clearing. You have brought everything you need for your holiday, including one large tent for all of you to sleep in. There is a well nearby with good water, and you have permission to cut wood and make fires. There are no other facilities, no rules, and no adults or camp administrator. You set up camp, swim, and prepare for a week of fun!

However, by the end of the first day at the campsite, there have already been some disagreements about how the camp should be run. You all realise that it would be better if you could agree on ways to make your holiday easier. You hold a meeting."

"After the meeting, all goes well and things are much better. However, after a couple of days, more problems arise, which together you have to sort out to prevent them happening again."

These activities build on those for younger children on pages 65 - 70.

Rights and Responsibilities

Aim: This short listing and discussion activity helps students to understand the connection between rights and responsibilities

Learning point:

- Every right has a corresponding responsibility.

What you need:

- Simplified Version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see page 163).

- Information about Rights and Responsibilities (see page 111).

Time: Forty-five minutes

How to do it:

Ask the students to form pairs. Each student should write down five important rights which they think they should have in the school and five important rights which they think they should have at home. For example, the right to their own space.

Ask each student to swop their list with their partner. Each student should think of the responsibilities which correspond with each right that their partner listed. For example, the responsibility to respect the space of the people they live with.

Every pair reports to the rest of the class two rights and their corresponding responsibilities from their lists. The teacher should write the rights and responsibilities on the wall.

Ask the students to read the Information about Rights and Responsibilities. Start a discussion using the following questions:

Questions:

Was it easy or hard to think of each right's corresponding responsibility?

In the example about seatbelts (see Information about Rights and Responsibilities, page 111), who do you think is right, the government or the people who refuse to wear seatbelts?

What if someone you knew was injured because a driver refused to wear a seatbelt? How might this happen? How would you feel?

What if a sick child died because the doctor was too busy helping a driver who had refused to wear a seatbelt and was injured? Look at the Simplified Version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on page 163. Which rights are involved in this example?

Can you think of similar examples where other rights and responsibilities conflict?

Choices:

Because issues of rights and responsibilities are common in schools (for example the right to use equipment, and the responsibility not to damage it) this activity can be the basis for using the language of rights and responsibility in everyday situations.

As an action, students and teachers can keep the list of rights and equivalent responsibilities on the wall. When conflicts occur, or when other rights issues come up, anyone is free to add to the list. For example, if some students have been "borrowing" other people's possessions without permission, a student might decide to add to the list: "I have the right to privacy and security for my belongings / And I also have the responsibility to respect the privacy and security of my classmates." It might be useful to write at the top of the list: "We all have the right to add to this list / And we have the responsibility not to write things which violate the rights of others".

To help clarify rights and responsibilities, students could read the following information on "Negative" and "Positive" rights from page 111, then go through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifying "Negative" and "Positive" rights (they will find that many rights consist equally of "negative" (responsibility) and "positive" (right) elements.


Information about Rights and Responsibilities

Every right has a corresponding responsibility. For example, your right to freedom of speech is limited by your responsibility not to say untrue things which will degrade another person and abuse their right to dignity and good reputation.

The balance of our rights and our responsibilities to respect the rights of other people means that we usually have to exercise our rights within certain restraints.

There are many situations where rights and responsibilities of different people conflict. For example, some countries have laws making the wearing of seatbelts compulsory in cars. Many people oppose these laws, arguing that it is a restriction of their right to act freely.

The governments of these countries argue that people in cars have a responsibility to the hospitals, doctors, and the rest of society to do everything possible to avoid getting injured while they are driving. It is argued that if people do not wear seatbelts and are injured, they take time, money and hospital space away from people with illnesses, and therefore restrict the right of sick people to proper health care.

Information on "Negative" and "Positive" Rights:

The term "negative right" is used to describe a right which stops something harmful or unpleasant being done to us. Examples of negative rights are the right not to be killed or badly treated or to have your possessions stolen. These are negative rights because they say NO to someone who might want to hurt you.

The term "positive right" is used to describe a right which declares our freedom to do something. For example, the right to be paid for your work is a positive right. These are positive rights because they tell you that YES you have this right, and they tell other people that YES they must support your right. For example, your employer has a responsibility to pay you.

Thief?

(Adapted from p.82 of Understand the Law 1993, The Citizenship Foundation)

Aim: This case study uses a moral dilemma to introduce students to ideas of responsibility in society. Although the person in the case study is accidentally overpaid a large amount, many students will have been given the wrong change in a shop and had to make a similar choice.

Learning point:

- Every right has a corresponding responsibility. For example, the right to be judged equally by the law has the corresponding responsibility to respect the law.

What you need: The Simplified Version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see page 163).

Time: At least one hour

How to do it:

Form the class into small groups of five or six.

Read the following text to the class:

"Every month Alexander puts a small part of his wages into his account at the local bank. It's not a lot, but it is the only way he can save enough for a holiday with his children.

Each month the bank sends Alexander a statement telling him how much he has in his account. This month Alexander sees that he has much more money than he thought. There must be a mistake. He writes to the bank to say it has given him $2,000 more than it should have.

'No,' says the bank, 'there has been no mistake. The money is yours.'

Alexander writes again. 'we have double checked,' says the bank, 'we have not made a mistake.'

Alexander still isn't happy. He writes for a third time, and the bank tells him again that the money is his.

After this, Alexander doesn't think he has anything to lose. He starts to spend the money on things he and his family need. He buys some new furniture, redecorates his flat and goes away on a week's holiday with his family.

A little later, the people at the bank realize that they have made a mistake. The $2,000 that Alexander has been given belongs to another customer who has the same name. The bank asks Alexander for the money back. He gives them what he has left, but he has spent more than $1,000. Alexander is charged with theft.

If Alexander is to be found legally guilty of theft, it must be proved in court that he:

- behaved dishonestly

- took or kept something belonging to someone else

- intended to keep it permanently."

Ask the students to decide in groups whether Alexander should be found guilty of theft. To answer this, the students need to ask three questions:

- Did Alexander behave dishonestly?

- Did Alexander take something from someone else?

- Did Alexander intend to keep it?



If the student's answer to all three questions is yes, then Alexander is guilty in law.

If the students answered no to one or more questions then he is not guilty.

- If the students decide that Alexander is guilty in law of theft, what punishment do they think he should be given?

For example, in England, for a crime of this kind a judge can send a person to prison for up to 10 years or make them pay a fine of up to 2,000 (about $3000).(You can find out what the punishment would be in your country and tell the students what this is.)

- If the students decide that Alexander is not guilty, would they make him pay back the money that he spent on his family and his home?

Now tell the class what actually happened to Alexander:

"After a three day trial, the jury found Alexander not guilty of theft. Juries don't have to give reasons for their verdict, but we can presume that Alexander's attempts to draw the error to the attention of the bank convinced the jury that he had not behaved with dishonest intent.

Although Alexander was found not guilty of theft, there still remained the question of whether he should return the money that he had already spent. It was not within the power of the court to deal with this and the bank needed to bring a new case through a different court to reclaim the money."

Questions:

What would you have done if you were Alexander? Why?

Who was responsible for correcting the bank's mistake - Alexander or the bank? Why?

Would it make a difference to your answer if the amount of money was smaller/larger?

What about other cases? For example, is it the responsibility of a car owner to lock her or his car or the responsibility of everyone else not to steal it if it is unlocked?

Imagine you were a friend of Alexander's. Would you report him to the police?

Who is responsible for enforcing the law?

Look at the Simplified Version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on page 163). Which rights are involved in this case?

Choices:

Students could write a story about a situation where they had to take responsibility and make a moral decision. For example, they find some money in the street - do they hand it in?

As a project, students can find out about the legal system in your country. Many courtrooms accept visitors. The project could result in a mock trial of a case involving rights and responsibilities.

Let Me Speak!

Aim: This letter-writing activity examines the rights and responsibilities of the individual and the state regarding freedom of expression. Because it depends a lot on trust between the students and the teacher, it is better to use it only when the students have already had experience of other activities for teaching human rights.

Learning points: - Every right has a corresponding responsibility.

- For example, the right to freedom of expression has the corresponding responsibility to respect the opinion of others.

Time: An hour and a half

What you need: The Simplified Version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see page 163). The Information on Censorship from page 117.

How to do it:

Ask the class to imagine that they are each writing to the local newspaper. (If your area does not have a local newspaper, you can invent one with the class, including the title, the frequency it is printed, etc) Ask them to write a short letter about something which they do not like at all in their local area. Explain that these letters will not be seen by anyone outside the class. Make sure that they are not.

After the students have written their letters, form the class into pairs. Ask each pair to exchange their letters. Now ask them to imagine that they are all editors of the local newspaper. They have received this letter which they are worried will upset the local authorities and the Mayor. Ask them to cross out (censor) the parts of the letter which they think are dangerous. They are allowed to change the letter in any way they like.

Return all the letters to those who wrote them. Either as a class, or in groups, discuss the questions below.

After the discussion, go through the Information on Censorship from page 117 and ask the class to think of a scenario to illustrate each of the points. For example, under "WHAT is being censored" the information lists "artists". Ask the students why they think someone would want to censor an artist. If your country has censorship now or in the past, refer to that, giving specific examples.

Questions:

Did you use some self-censorship before you wrote your letter? Why/Why not?

Did you use polite or offensive language?

If you wrote a polite letter, was it because you felt responsible toward the feelings of others or was it because you were afraid of possible punishment?

Were you thinking more about how to improve the situation or did you just want to show your anger?

How did you feel when your letter was censored?

How did your letter look after censorship?

How did you choose what to cross out on your friend's letter?

How do you think you would react if you were a local official who received a letter of complaint? What if the letter attacked your personality or used offensive language?

Do you think a government has a responsibility to listen to all complaints, even if they are "dangerous"? Why/ Why not?

Was your letter "dangerous"?

Why do you think we did this activity?

Choices:

If you think this is appropriate, the activity can be altered so that the students imagine that they are writing to a school newspaper.

As a project (see page 30) ask the class to monitor newspapers over a period. They could choose one news item and compare how different newspapers write about the same issue according to their bias.

If students feel strongly about an issue which they see in the newspapers, they could write a polite letter to the media as a class to express their point of view.

Information about Censorship

Freedom of expression is a human right set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19). Many people believe that it is the heart of a democratic society. Others say that too much freedom of expression can be dangerous. In many countries, free speech is controlled when it causes violence by inciting riots, calling on people to revolt, or when it is racist or bigoted. In some countries, criticism of the government is also censored.

WHO is doing the censoring:

"On 19 may 1884, four men set sail for Australia from England in a yacht called the Mignonette. They were Captain Thomas Dudley, First-mate Edwin Stephens, Seamen Ned Brooks and Richard Parker, the 17-year-old cabin boy. On 5 July a huge wave smashed into the side of the yacht. It started to sink. The men had time only to grab two tins of food and to get into an open boat before the Mignonette sank. The four unlucky sailors found themselves in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, 1,600 miles from land, with only a few tinned vegetables to keep them alive. After three days, the hungry men managed to catch a turtle. This provided them with food and drink, but nine days later that was all gone. Still 1,000 miles from land, with no food and only the occasional drop of rainwater to drink, the sailors became desperate. The Captain wrote in a letter to his wife that, if no ship should come, 'we must soon die... I am sorry I ever started such a trip...' There was, however, one chance of survival, at least for three of the crew, for a few more days. Someone would have to become food for the others. The Captain suggested that they draw lots to decide which of them should be killed, but Stephens and Brooks objected. 'if we are to die,' they said, 'we should all die together'. Young Richard Parker, lying hardly conscious in the bottom of the boat, said nothing.

After two more days without food and water, the Captain convinced Stephens that one of them ought to be sacrificed to save the others, and that the obvious candidate was Richard Parker. He was an orphan, had no wife or family, and was already on the brink of death. He woke from his coma only occasionally to drink sea-water which was making him even more ill. They knew their little boat was drifting towards the shipping lanes. They might sight a ship any day - or they might not. They agreed that if no help came to them by the next day, then they would kill the boy. None came. Seamen Brooks wanted no part in the killing. While he covered himself with a jacket at the end of the boat, Dudley and Stephens knelt over the unconscious Parker.

'Richard, my boy,' whispered the Captain, 'your time has come. Stephens stood ready to hold the boy's feet but there was no need. He was too ill to struggle as the Captain took out a pocket-knife and plunged it into the boy's neck, killing him instantly. All three men drank the blood and ate Richard's heart and liver for the next three days. On the fourth day, they were sighted by a German ship, the Montezuma. The three men were very weak. The First-mate and Captain needed to be hauled on board by rope.

The men landed in England on 7 September. Dudley, Stephens and Brooks went straight to the authorities and explained the reasons for the death of the boy."

"Incidents like this had happened before, and so Dudley, Stephens and Brooks were very surprised when they were immediately charged with murder - although the charge against Seaman Brooks was later dropped. There was a lot of public interest in the story as it was reported in detail by the newspapers. Money was collected to pay for lawyers to defend the men in court. At the trial, everyone agreed about the facts of the case, but the jury were faced with a difficult task. They sympathised with the three men, and would have liked to agree that it was not wrong for someone to kill another to save his or her own life. But they did recognize that to kill someone intentionally who was not threatening your own life must be murder. The judge offered the jury a way out of this problem by allowing them to take the unusual step of a 'special verdict'. In this, the jury stated the facts of the case, but left a panel of five judges to decide whether Dudley and Stephens were guilty of murder."

"The court passed a verdict of murder on Dudley and Stephens. The sentence for murder was death, but in this case it was changed to six months imprisonment. By the standards of the time, and compared with the treatment given to other sailors in a similar position, this was still thought by many to be severe."

She was imprisoned in the Small Zone, a special unit for women political prisoners at Barashevo in the Mordvinian Autonomous Republic, in the Russian Federation. The Small Zone had the harshest regime of imprisonment allowed for women under Soviet law.

Irina went on hunger strikes to protest against the unheated cells and lack of proper food and medical attention. She suffered from numerous medical problems, yet her family could neither visit nor send medication. In response to her hunger strikes, Irina was transferred to the punishment facilities at the Yavas prison. Upon arrival, she was beaten unconscious, left overnight in her underwear on the stone floor and was not allowed a prison cot for recuperation. After attempting to bring charges against the wardens who had beaten her, Irina was put in solitary confinement for "pretending to suffer from concussion."

In a book called "Grey is the Colour of Hope", she described her prison life: "All those norms of human behaviour which are inculcated in one from the cradle, are subjected to deliberate and systematic destruction. It's normal to want to be clean? Then take your portion of salted sardelles through the hatch in your cell door with your bare hands! You will not be given plates or knives, not even a sheet of paper to put it on. And then, wipe the fish innards off your hands against your clothes, because you can't have any water! Contract scabies and skin fungus, live in filth, breath the stench of the slopbucket, then you'll regret your misdemeanours! Women are prone to modesty? All the more reason to strip them naked during searches, and when they're taken to the bathhouse while under investigation, a whole group of leering and jeering KGB officers will enter 'by chance'... a normal person is repelled by coarseness and lies? You shall encounter such an amount of both, that you will have to strain all your inner resources to remember that there is, there is another reality!"

In 1983, Irina's case was taken up by the human rights organisation Amnesty International, which began to campaign for Irina's release. The Amnesty International Group in Milwaukee, USA, organized a major campaign to publicize Irina's plight in magazine and newspaper articles and radio interviews, including an interview with Voice of America which was broadcast many times into the USSR. They sent petitions and postcards about Irina to Soviet officials and tried to get the assistance of US officials, including the President. They also contacted Irina's husband and mother-in-law.

continued...

Irina's Story continued...

In 1985, Amnesty International found that Irina had been transferred to an unknown location. The Milwaukee group organized a sold-out concert for Irina's birthday and International Women's Day. At the concert, her poems were read aloud by a famous poet, and descriptions of her case and letter writing instructions were given to the audience.

By 1986, Irina's case had become well known. Senator Edward Kennedy discussed the case with Secretary General Mikhail Gorbachev on his visit to the USSR. A hunger strike supporting Irina was held in England, and in Israel, Amnesty groups distributed brochures about Irina. Students in Denver, Colorado, held a birthday party for Irina and wrote to her every day. Irina was finally released early on October 9, 1986. The Soviet authorities also allowed her to travel abroad for medical treatment. Irina was forbidden to write poetry in prison and was denied paper and things for writing. However, she scratched poems into a large bar of soap in her cell, memorized them, then washed them away. She wrote 300 poems in this way. The poems were later published after her arrival in the West.

Information about Prisoners of Conscience

Prisoners of conscience are men, women and children detained for their beliefs, colour, sex, ethnic origin, language or religion who have neither used nor advocated violence.

All over the world, hundreds of thousands of people are in prison, not because they are criminals, but for what they believe in. They are often held without trial, or after a secret trial, or a trial carried out in their absence. Such imprisonments are against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many prisoners of conscience have their freedom taken away for disagreeing peacefully with their government.

What's fair? - activities about justice

The aim is to show that large numbers of people are unfairly denied their human rights in everyday situations, and that this should be opposed and overcome.

These activities build on those for younger children on pages 79 - 84.

Vesna's Story (Adapted from p.16 of Understand the Law 1995, The Citizenship Foundation)

Aim: This case study about racial discrimination aims to explore issues of justice and human rights.

Learning point:

- Discrimination, including racial discrimination, is a violation of human rights.

Time: About an hour and a half

What you need: A copy of the Simplified Version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (from page 163) for each group.

How to do it:

Form the class into small groups of five or six.

Explain to the class that many countries have laws against unfair discrimination on the grounds of race or sex. Also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains articles against discrimination.

Ask the class in their groups to look at different parts of the simplified version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to find which are the relevant articles against discrimination. (Note: Almost every article is relevant in some way.)

After ten minutes, go round the class, and ask each group to tell the class about an article they think is relevant. Ask them justify their choice by giving a practical example of how that article counters discrimination.

Read out Vesna's Story:

Vesna is a Roma woman. This is her story.

"I saw a job for a sales assistant advertised in the window of a clothes shop. They wanted someone between 18 and 23. I'm 19, so I went in and asked about the job but was told by the manageress to come back in two days because not enough people had applied.

I returned twice, and was always told the same thing. Nearly a week later I went back to the shop. The job advertisement was still in the window. The manageress was too busy to see me, but I was told that the vacancy had been filled.

After I left the shop, I was so upset that I asked a non-Roma friend if she would go in and ask about the job. When she came out she said that she had been asked to come for an interview on Monday."

"I felt that Vesna would find it difficult to work here, because of the distance that she would have to travel in to work each day. It would be an eight-mile journey on two buses. It makes it very difficult to run the shop if staff are always late. I'd much prefer to appoint someone from this area.

The person to whom I offered the job seemed just right."

"Vesna took her case to a special European court which enforces the law about discrimination. The court agreed that she had been discriminated against. Several other people who lived far away from the shop had been interviewed. The girl who got the job was only 16, white, and lived the same distance from the shop as Vesna. The shop had to give Vesna some money for the injury to her feelings."

"8-10 moves: Your decisions have helped the whole group quickly reach the beacon but some people might have been lost on the way.

11-13 moves: You have tried to move the group on as quickly as possible but you haven't ignored the needs of certain members of the group.

14-16 moves: You have put the wishes of the individual members of the group before the needs of the whole group. This has meant that the journey has taken longer."

"It is a dark, cold and wet night on the border between X and Y. A column of refugees has arrived, fleeing from the war in X. They want to cross into Y. They are hungry, tired and cold. They have no money, and no documents except their passports. The immigration officials from country Y have different points of view - some want to allow the refugees to cross, but others don't. The refugees are desperate, and use several arguments to try to persuade the immigration officials."

Most refugees seek safety in a neighbouring country. Others have to travel great distances to find safety. Refugees often arrive at airports and sea ports far from their native land, asking for entry.

In 1951, the United Nations adopted the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. More than half of the countries in the world have agreed with the Convention. They give protection to refugees and agree not to force them to return to their country to risk persecution or death. Article 33 of the Convention says: "No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."

continued...

Information about refugees continued...

This also applies if a government wants to send a refugee to another country from which the refugee might be sent home. Also, governments must hear the claim of a refugee who wants to find safety (seek asylum) in their country. This principle applies to all states, whether or not they are party to the 1951 Convention.

According to the Convention, a refugee is someone who has left their country and is unable to return because of a real fear of being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

The 1951 Convention also says that refugees should be free from discrimination and should receive their full rights in the country where they go to be safe. Also, many articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protect refugees. However, countries disagree about who is a "genuine" refugee. The media and politicians often demand limits on the number of refugees, saying that they cause racial tension, and shortages of housing and jobs.

In recent years the governments of many of the world's richest countries have reduced the number of refugees they allow in, for two reasons. First, air travel has become cheaper, meaning that more refugees from developing countries want to enter developed countries. Second, the world economic downturn has reduced the need for large workforces. This means that refugees who used to come as migrant workers now have to apply for refugee status.

To justify restrictions on refugees, rich countries often say that refugees are not victims of oppression, but just want a better standard of living. They call them "economic migrants". To protect the rights of refugees the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) based in Geneva, was established by the UN General Assembly on 14 December 1950.

Governments often argue that refugee's fears are exaggerated or untrue. Refugees are protected from this argument by organisations who use evidence of human rights violations in the refugee's country to persuade the government to let them apply for asylum.

Action! - taking human rights beyond the classroom

Born Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in Gujarat, India in 1869, he qualified as a lawyer in England before practising in South Africa. There he experienced racial discrimination for the first time. There were laws to stop people without white skin from doing many things, such as becoming a lawyer or travelling in the first class compartments of trains. Gandhi saw that many black people in South Africa were poor and they were treated badly by the whites. He organized protests and went to prison fighting against injustice.

From the beginning of his life as a protester Gandhi was directed by his deep religious convictions. He believed that violence was always wrong.

Gandhi returned to India in 1915. There was a great poverty among the Indians too. The British were ruling India harshly, taking taxes that the people could not afford, preventing Indians from ruling their own country, discouraging their industry and using force to control the people.

In 1930 Gandhi chose an issue to protest about that at first did not worry the British because it seemed so minor - the tax on salt. Salt can be taken from sea water but in India all salt was made and sold by British government who made money out of it. Gandhi said that the salt belonged to India and that he would break this law.

First, he asked to discuss the issue with the head of the British government in India the Viceroy. The Viceroy refused, thinking it was unimportant. Then, on 12 March 1930, when he was sixty years old, Gandhi set out with his followers to march 322 kilometres from his home to the sea to make salt. For twenty-four days the people of India and the rest of the world followed his progress. The anticipation was intense. On 6 April, with thousands of onlookers Gandhi walked into the sea and picked up a handful of salt. This act of defiance was a signal to the nation. All along the coast of India people made salt illegally. He wrote, "I want world sympathy in this battle of Right against Might." A month later Gandhi was arrested and tens of thousands had been put in prison.

Gandhi and the people of India spent many years protesting before the British finally left. They continued to march, to refuse to cooperate, and to stretch British resources by allowing themselves to be imprisoned.

Finally India achieved success in 1947 when the British gave up their rule and India became independent.


Action Roleplays

Aim: This roleplay activity aims to encourage children to apply their rights in real situations.

Learning point:

- Human rights violation occur in everyday situations and can be opposed by everyday people.

What you need:

- Simplified version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, from page 163. (enough for one copy per four or five students - these can be hand-copied).

- Advice on using roleplay from page 24.

- Roleplay situations from page 155.

Time: One and a half hours

How to do it:

Ask the class to divide into small groups of three or four. Read out roleplay One and ask the class to identify the articles of the Simplified Universal Declaration of Human Rights which are relevant to it. Below are some likely answers, but this list is not exhaustive. Allow five to ten minutes for this.

Repeat for roleplays Two and Three.

In roleplay One, the most relevant articles are:

Article two, articles six and seven, and article thirteen.


In roleplay Two, the most relevant articles are:

Article twenty and article twenty-three.


In roleplay Three, the most relevant articles are:

Articles nineteen and twenty, and article twenty-four.

Now re-arrange the class into three groups, and give each group one of the roleplay situations. Ask each group to roleplay their situation, with their own ending. They will need to decide who will play each role, and how to play the end of the situation. (For step-by-step advice on how to run roleplays, see the advice on page 24)

Ask each group in turn to play their roleplay for the whole class. After each roleplay performance, ask the players how it felt, then ask the whole class to think of other possible endings. Encourage them to think about ways in which the people in the situations could prevent their rights being violated.

Choice:

If the class is small, or there is a lack of time, a few students could perform one roleplay for the whole class.

Roleplays:

One: Ida wants to cross the border into the neighbouring country to visit her daughter, who has married someone from that country. The border officials refuse to let her in. They say that she is too poor to pay for a hotel in their country.

Two: Ivan is a cleaner in car wash company. In the winter his hands are hurt by pieces of ice. His boss said he will not buy gloves for Ivan because they are very expensive. Ivan can't afford to buy them for himself. He asks his Union to help. When his boss finds out, Ivan loses his job.

Three: The last park in town is going to be made into a carpark. Ten people from the neighbourhood demonstrate peacefully in the park, saying they need a place to relax and for their children to play in. The Police come and say that they are not allowed to demonstrate and that they should go home. The demonstrators sit down on the ground and refuse to move. The police move them by force, hurting some of them.