3. Acceptability Extreme views of the role of the government in education are embodied in seeing the state as the sole funder and provider of education, with the other extreme deeming the state to be only the regulator. Much as in any other area, the extremes are rarely present in the practice of states and cloak the global consensus around the regulatory role of the state, that is, its task to set and enforce educational standards and provide the necessary funding. The right to education ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals.’27 The state is obliged to ensure that all schools conform to the minimal criteria which it has developed, thus ensuring one component of making education acceptable. Respect for parental freedom to have their children educated in conformity with their religious, moral or philosophical convictions has been affirmed in all general human rights treaties and is continuously subjected to litigation. The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected a claim by a parent to ‘educate his children as he pleases,’ based on ‘his authority over his children and his duty to attend to their education’ which comes from God. Although Canadian law does not require compulsory education but allows parents to exempt their children from attending school if they are ‘under efficient instruction at home or elsewhere,’ the applicant had refused to apply for an approval of home education, claiming that this 27 European Court of Human Rights – Belgian Linguistic Case, Judgment of 23 July 1968, Series A, No. 6, para. 5. would violate his religious freedom. The Court has found that ‘accommodation of defendant’s religious beliefs would entail a complete exemption from state regulation’ and thus ‘severely impede the achievement of important state goals.’28 Respect of religious convictions in education has emerged with particular frequency with regard to Jehovah’s Witnesses. The European Court of Human Rights examined a complaint concerning a girl who was suspended from school because of her refusal to participate in a parade. She regarded it as a commemoration of war, and her religious convictions prevented her from participating in an event that would glorify warfare. The Court took note of the parents’ pacifist convictions (not saying much about the girl’s) but found no human rights violation.29 The Supreme Court of the Philippines has taken the opposite approach and affirmed that children who are Jehovah’s Witnesses have the right to be exempt from the flag ceremony (consisting of the singing of the national anthem, saluting the flag and reciting a patriotic pledge) because their freedom to exercise their religious beliefs could only be limited on the grounds of a danger to public safety.30 The language of instruction is a frequent bone of contention because it can preclude children from attending 28 Supreme Court of Canada – R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R, 284. 29 European Court of Human Rights – Efstratiou v. Greece and Valsamis v. Greece, Judgments of 18 December 1996. 30 Supreme Court of the Philippines – Ebralinag v. The Division Superintendent of School of Cebu, G.R. Nos. 95770 & 95887, 1 March 1993 and 29 December 1995. Right to Education Primers No. 3 29