MCL 6224 Issues in the Development of Liberal Studies Lecture 3 Development of the Pedagogical Approach to Liberal Studies in the HKSAR.

MCL 6224Issues in the Development of Liberal Studies

Lecture 3 Development of the Pedagogical Approach

to Liberal Studies in the HKSAR

The Official Version of Issue Enquiry

The Official Version of Issue Enquiry

ProcessesRelationship with development of multiple perspectives

( I )Mastering the facts, understanding the phenomena, clarifying the concepts

Different sources of information Different ways of data collection Different interpretations and explanations Different associations …

( II )Understanding the differences and conflicts involved

Different values Different interests Different convictions …

( III )Reflection, evaluation, judgment, solution, action

Considering all sides of the argument Weighing the pros and cons Putting forward reasons and justifications Accepting consequences Revising judgement …

What is At Issue? Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry

The idea of “Issue” According to the Oxford English Dictionary,

The noun “issue” means “a point or matter in contention between two parties; …a choice between alternatives; a dilemma”.

The phrasal expression “at issue” means “in controversy; taking opposite sides of a case or contrary views of a matter.

“To join issue” means “to accept or adopt a disputed point as the basis of argument in a controversy; to proceed to argument with a person on a particular point”.

“To make an issue of” means to turn into a subject of contention”.


The conception of issue inquiry Reasonable disagreement and issue worthy of inquiring

Given that “issue” means matters in contention, dispute, disagreement and controversy, however, as underlined by John Rawls, in political and social daily life not all disagreement or controversial issues are “reasonable” and worthy of inquiring. (Rawls, 1993, p.58)


The conception of issue inquiry Reasonable disagreement and issue worthy of inquiring

We must make a distinction between reasonable and unreasonable disagreements.

• By unreasonable disagreement, it refers to disagreement grows out of “prejudice and bias, self and group interest, blindness and willfulness” (Rawls, 1993, p. 58) or of “simple ignorance or …mere undisciplined assertiveness.” (Dearden, 1984, p. 85)

• By reasonable disagreement, according to John Rawls it refers to “disagreement between reasonable persons: that is, between persons who have realized their two moral powers to a degree sufficient to be free and equal citizens in a constitutional regime, and who have an enduring desire to honor fair terms of cooperation and to be fully cooperating members of society.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 55).


The conception of issue inquiry Sources of reasonable disagreements and controversial issue

s: According to Rawles and others (Dearden, 1984; Bridges, 1986; McLaughlin, 2003), reasonable disagreements and controversial issues are commonly emerged in liberal-democratic societies from numbers of sources. They can be summarized as follows.


The conception of issue inquiry Sources of reasonable disagreements

Availability, reliability and sufficiency of evidences: “The evidence—empirical and scientific—bearing on the case is conflicting and complex, and thus hard to assess and evaluate.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 56) This source of controversies refers to disagreement derives on the ground that the factual evidences required for settling the dispute in point are not yet available or are in conflict. For example, the effects of GM (genetic-modified) food or cloning (both beneficial and harmful effects), the causes of the damage of the ozone layer, or the effects on the development of children growing up in queer families, etc. are still in dispute among natural and social scientists. And there are not sufficient and reliable evidences to make informed decisions on the issues in point.



Relevance of evidences: In cases where evidences have been scientifically and empirically proven to be reliable, controversies may still emerge on the ground that the evidences in point are irrelevant to the issues in dispute.

Relative weights of evidences: “Even where we agree fully about the kinds of considerations that are relevant, we may disagree about their weight, and so arrive at different judgments.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 56) Parties in dispute may put forth relevant and reliable scientific evidences in support of the stances in controversial issues. As a result, disagreements will derived on the ground that whether and how relative weights are assigned to different evidences in settling the controversial issues in point.



Valuation and interpretation of issues: Issues do not only involve judgments of factual evidences, but also invoke desirable and preferable attributes, which individuals or social groups attached to the issues in point. For example, legalization of same-sex marriage may invoke value controversy between personal liberty of choice and the stability of the institutional orders of a given society. Furthermore, the normative concepts attached to social and political issues are most likely to be indeterminacy in nature and subject to different interpretations. Hence, disagreements between values and their interpretations are another reasonable ground from which controversial issues are derived.



Prioritization of values: Even where there are general agreements on the relevance and interpretations of the values involved in an issue, disagreement can still derive from the priorities ascribed to each of the preferences involved.

Positional and experiential considerations: “In a modern society with its numerous offices and positions, its various divisions of labor, its many social groups and their ethnic variety, citizens’ total experiences are disparate enough for their judgment to diverge.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 57) As a result, they will constitute reasonable disagreements in modern liberal-democratic society.



Normative and perspective considerations: Another source of disagreements among reasonable citizens in liberal democratic society is differences in comprehensive moral doctrines or overall socio-political perspectives that different social categories and/or fractions adhere. For examples, differences in the socio-political orientations between unionists and employer and business federations; or differences in public-policy stances between liberals and communitarians; etc.

Institutional imperatives: “Any system of social institutions is limited in the values it can admit so that some selection must be made from the full range of moral and political values that might be realized. This is because any system of institutions has, as it were, a limited social space.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 57) Public choices are not made in social, economic, political and cultural vacuum; they are bounded by different institutional constraints.


The conception of issue inquiry The burdens of judgment and necessities of issue inquiry: In

modern liberal-democratic societies, citizens are often confronted by these reasonable disagreements or controversial issues. As a result, they are burdened with these hard decisions and judgments. And John Rawls has characterized these burdens of judgment are the first pre-requisites of citizens in liberal polities.


The nature of issue-inquiry approach to Liberal Studies In light of the precedent explication on reasonable

disagreement in liberal-democratic societies, we may identify the issue to be inquired in the issue-inquiry approach in the teaching of Liberal Studies should be confined to issues, which constitute reasonable disagreement and not those derived from prejudice, ignorance, and blindness.


The nature of issue-inquiry approach to Liberal Studies Accordingly, the general outcome of issue-inquiry approach is

by definition informed, reasoned and reasonable judgments and their entailed decisions. Hence, it is helpful to make the distinction between the terms “issue”, “question” and “problem” in the teaching of Liberal Studies. For a question, one may search for an answer, while for a problem, one may simply demand a solution; but as for an issue, especially a controversial issue or “reasonable disagreement” as John Rawls stipulated, what one would strive for will be judgment and decision.

Issue Inquiry Approach in the UK and US

Teaching controversial issues in the UK: Teaching Controversial Issues as a approach to po

litical education was initated in the 1970s in the UK by Bernard Crick and the working party of the Hansard Society (Crick, 1978; see also Stradling et al., 1984)


Teaching controversial issues in the UK: The approach has gained its retrieval in Section 10

of “Guidance on the Teaching of Controversial Issues” in Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools: The Final Report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship (The Advisory Group on Citizenship, 1998)


Teaching controversial issues in the UK: “A controversial issue is an issue about which

there is no one fixed or universally held point of view. Such issues are those which commonly divide society and for which significant groups offer conflicting explanation and solution. There may, for example, be conflicting views on such matters as how a problem has arisen and who is to blame; over how the problem may be resolved; over what principles should guide the decisions that can be taken, and so on.” (The Advisory Group on Citizenship, 1998, P. 56)


The Issue-Centered Decision Making Curriculum in Social Studies in the US Issue inquiry approach has a long tradition in the

teaching of Social Studies in the US, for example Oliver and Shaver’s jurisprudential approach (1966)James Banks’ decision-making model (1973/1985)Engle and Ochoa’s citizens’ decision-making approach

(1988)Multicultural education (Banks, 2002, 2007)


The Issue-Centered Decision Making Curriculum in Social Studies in the US Most recently, Ochoa-Becker specifies the “Issue-

Centered Decision Making Curriculum as the curriculum for education for democratic citizenship in the US. She underlines that “The overarching purpose of this Issue-Centered Decision Making Curriculum is to improve the quality of decision making by democracy’s citizens as they respond to issues that require resolution. …The decision making process advanced here is applicable to virtually every domain of our lives.” (Ochoa-Becker, 2007, p. 124)

Decision-Problem

Social inquiry Value inquiry

Value ClarificationSocial Knowledge

Rational Decision

Intelligent social action

Products of previous inquiries by social

scientists

A social studies curriculum focused on social inquiry, valuing, decision-making, and intelligent social action

(Source: Banks, 1985)

Decision-ProblemWhat action should we take regarding race relations in our city?

Social InquiryKey ConceptsConflictCultureDiscriminationSpecialization Power

Value Inquiry1. Recognizing value problems2. Describing value-relevant behavior3. Naming values4. Determining value conflicts5. Hypothesizing about value sources6. Naming value alternatives 7. Hypothesizing about consequences8. Choosing9 Stating reasons, sources, and consequences

of choiceKnowledge necessary for naming alternatives and making predictions Value Clarification

Making a Decision1. Identifying Alternatives (Using generalizations related to key concepts to identify alternatives)2. Predicting Consequences of each alternative (Using generalizations related to key concepts to predict consequences)3. Ordering Alternatives Which is most consistent with value position identified above?

Action

Doubt-concern

Problem Formulation

Formulation of Hypotheses

Collection of Data

Evaluation and Analysis of Data

Definition of Terms - Conceptualization

Theory-Values

Testing hypotheses: Deriving generalizations and theories

Beginning inquiry new

A model of social inquiry

Value Problem

Relevant behavior

Related values Possible consequences

Sources

Value preference

Sources Reasons

Conflicting values

Possible consequences

Alternative values Possible consequences

Operations of Value Inquiry Model, Graphically Illustrated

Policy Issue: Should Vere sentence Billy to hang?

Moral-Value Issue

Is killing wrong?

Definitional Issue

What does mutiny mean?

Fact-Explanation Issue

Would hanging Billy deter mutiny?

Newmann’s Approach to the Analysis of Policy Issues

A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry Approach for Liberal Studies

The teaching framework is made up of the following constituents Issue analysis: It refers to first of all identifying the social

backgrounds from which the issue invokes. Second is to identify the parties engaging in an issue. In public and social issues, they may involve different political parties, interest groups or stake-holders. However, in a controversial social issue, the engaging parties may be numerous in number and their opinions about the issue may vary diversely. Nevertheless, as in most political issues, these diverse stances will subsequently aggregate or even polarize into two opposite camps. Thirdly, it is to how the parties involved aggregate and aligned into opposite camps. Finally, it is to collect the statements and arguments each parties put forth.


The factual inquiry: It refers to analyzing the factual statements put forth by parties engaging in a disputing issue. Usually these factual statements fall into one of the following categories Descriptive, definitional and characterizational statements: They

provide factual descriptions of the phenomena relating to the issue under study. Accordingly, they define the status quo of the situation. For examples, the air of HK is highly populated; the ozone layer of the earth has been damaged; global warming exists; Queen Pier is part of Hong Kong’s collective memory; Olympic Games is purely an athletic events; Olympic Games is an international political event, etc. In connection to the analysis of this kind of statements, one may reveal the definitional issue involved in the dispute. For example, one may ask are the parties involved share common definition of the situation or are they simply talking across each other?


The factual inquiry: Causal statements: They make claims of causal relationship

between phenomena relating to the issue in point. For example, polluted air is hazardous to health; damaged ozone layer is hazardous to health; global warming is hazardous to the environment; genetic modified food is hazardous to health; genetic modified food is hazardous to environment; etc. In connection to the analysis of the causal statements invoked in the dispute, one must not accept the causal statements in the face-value and should further interrogate the validity and reliability of the methodology through which the causal statements are substantiated.


The value inquiry: It refers to clarifying and prioritizing the desirable or preferable attributes or standards of worth imputed by engaging parties to the phenomena pertaining to the issue in point. Concept of value: Values are desirable and preferable

attributes a person impute to objects in his environment. “Conduct, performances, situations, occurrence, states of affairs,

production, all these is associated with the ways in which we perceive them, appraise them, judge them, and the way we are inclined towards or away from, attracted to or repelled by, such objects, production, states of affairs, performances, manifestations of conducts. We choose them. We prefer them over other things in the same class of comparison. We want to follow their model or to replicate them. We want to emulate them.” (Aspin, 1999, p.125)


The value inquiry: Concept of value: Values are desirable and preferable attribute

s a person impute to objects in his environment. 價值：「大體上說來，一切具價值之事物，都是人所欲得的，

人所尋求的、喜悅的、愛護的、讚美的、或崇敬的。簡言之，即都是人所欲或所好的。一切具負價值或反價值之事物，則都是人所不欲得的，人所不尋求的、厭棄的、憎恨的、貶斥的、鄙視的。簡言之，即都是人所不欲或所惡的」。（唐君毅， 2005 ，頁 707 ）


The value inquiry: Constituents in the definition of value

The valuator The valuation The object under valuation The result of the valuation

• Private pursuit and actualization of the result

• Public action of actualization of the result


The value inquiry: Typology of values: Values can be classified according to

many different criteria. The most two common classifications are Distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic (or instrumental)

values: • “An intrinsic value can be defined as something that is valuable for its

own sake” (Ellis, p.12) or important in and of itself.• “An extrinsic value is valuable not for its own sake, but because it

facilitates getting or accomplishing something that is valuable for its own sake.” (Ellis, p.12) It means the worth or desirability of a thing or person is derived from its instrumentality and efficiency in achieving something more desirable.


The value inquiry: Typology of values:

Distinction between personal moral and social ethical values （唐君毅， 1957/2005 ）

• Personal moral values 個人道德價值 refers to the desirable and preferable standards a person imputes to his/her personal actions, conducts and ways of life.

• Social ethical values 社會倫理價值 refers to the desirable and preferable standards a group of human beings impute to their inter-personal relationships. With regards of the various domains of inter-personal relationships, social ethical values can further be categorized as familial-ethical values, economic-ethical values, political-ethical values, aesthetical-ethical values, scholarly-ethical values, professional-ethical values, etc.

Intrinsic Values Extrinsic Values

Personal-Moral Values

Social-Ethical Values - familial values - economic value - political values - aesthetic values - scholarly values - professional values


The value inquiry: Bases intrinsic value: Debate between deontologicalist and in

stitutionalist Deontological theory of valuation can usually be traced back to K

ant’s concept of categorical imperative. It is the universal normative rule, which transcends all particular ontological situations, i.e. the deontological principle of ethical conduct.

• It is called the categorical imperative because it is “'categorical' in a sense that the principle is not based upon different goals and desires people might happen to have, and ‘imperative’ since it tells people what they ought to do.” (Rogerson, 1991, p. 108)

• Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative can simply be stated as that in testing for the morality of actions, “an action is morally permissible if you would be willing to have everyone act as you are proposing to act (if you would be willing to have the ‘maxim’ of your action become a universal law). An action is morally wrong if you are not willing to have everyone act as you are proposing to act.” (Rogerson, 1991, p. 108)


The value inquiry: Bases intrinsic value: Debate between deontologicalist and ins

titutionalist The institutional bases of valuation

• Alasdair McIntyre, in contrast to Neo-Kantian stance, proposes that the social ground of intrinsic-value valuation “can never be grounded by an appeal to some neo-Kantian ideal of a set of norms presupposed by all speakers in a discussion. Rather, the concept of the better argument must always be ground within social particular tradition of philosophical enquiry.” (Doody, 1991, p. 61)

• More specifically, McIntyre contends that it is within a tradition of a craft of inquiry that rationality and ethical principles can find their authority or ground of justification. Hence, “for on McIntyre’s account, moral rules are not embodiments of a pure practical reason whose charge is to issue statements of oughts which necessarily bind ahistorical beings. Rather moral rules which express claims of ought are expressions or statements of …virtues and rules of practices that which were …grounded in a community of practice which understood itself through those practices.” (Doody, 1991, p.68)


The institutional (or jurisprudential) inquiry: Apart from analyzing the factual and value stances adopted by the engaging parties in controversial issues, in issue inquiry, one must analyze the institutional implications of the actions and strategies waged by the engaging parties. That is to put these social actions in the social-ethical and political-legal context and examine whether their actions and strategies have violated the socially and legally endorsed standards. Furthermore, one may even analyze whether the ends justify the means, which violate legal and/or ethical principles.


The comparative-multicultural inquiry: In order to enlarge one’s perception and understanding of the issue under study, one should extent the inquiry beyond the institutional contexts in which one is familiarized with, to avoid culturally ethnocentric version. Accordingly, comparable issues invoked in other spatial and temporal contexts should also be studied.


Formulations of judgments Judgment refers to “the mental or intellectual process of

forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing.” (Connolly et al., 2000, p. 1)


Formulations of judgments According to the issue-inquiry approach explicated about,

judgments can be classified into four kinds. Comparison among factual judgments of empirical causes or

contributing factors. Comparison among Value judgments of intrinsic, extrinsic,

personal and/or social values and set up one value priority list. Comparison among institutional judgments of legal, political,

economical and/or cultural imperatives within a society Comparison among institutional judgments of legal, political,

economical and/or cultural imperatives among societies


The decision making: Having formulated one’s matrix of judgments on factual, value, institutional and comparative bases, one can then try to formulate one’s stance on the disputing issue and make one’s own decision on the issue. One may formulate one’s decision into a priori decomposition of a ‘decision tree, which usually consists of: (Connolly, et al. 2000, p. 4) “What are my possible courses of action? (Alternatives) What are the events that might follow form those actions?

(Outcomes) What is the likelihood of each event? What is the value of each event to me?”


The ideal typical model of decision making: A priori decomposition of decision tree


The ideal typical model of decision making: A priori decomposition of decision tree

Controversial Issue

Factual Bases Value Bases

Institutional Bases Comparative Multicultural Bases

Judgment

Decision

Issue Analysis1. Studying the background of the issue2. Identifying the disputing parties involved3. Analyzing the alignment of parties into opposite camps4. Identifying the statements and arguments from each camps

Factual Inquiry1. Descriptive & definitional statements

analysis2. Causal statements analysis3. Weights and priorities assigned to

factual evidences

Value Inquiry1. Identify the values attributed by parties in dispute2. Clarify the conception and interpretation of the values

involved. 3. Analyze the foundations of the values 4. Priority analyze the conflicting values

Institutional Inquiry1. Identify the institutions in which the

issue invoked2. Identify the institutional practice or

values being endorsed or violated

Comparative Multicultural Inquiry1. Identify comparable issues in other societies2. Identify comparable issue in other points in

time 3. Analyze the commonalities and differences

among cases

Making a Decision 1. Identifying Alternatives2. Assessing anticipated effects of each alternative3. Predicting unanticipated consequences of each alternatives4. Prioritizing alternatives 5. Making choice

Sample of Issue-Inquiry Design: 1

Publications of Paparazzi Photographs should be Penalized

What is at issue?


Incidents: Case 1: Publication of changing-room photos of

Gillian Chung ( 鍾欣桐 ) by Easy Finder ( 一本便利 ) on 23 Aug., 2006


Incidents: Case 1: Publication of changing-room photos of

Gillian Chung ( 鍾欣桐 ) by Easy Finder ( 一本便利 ) on 23 Aug., 2006

Case 2: Douglas and Others v Hello! (English High Court, 2001)

Case 3: Campbell v Mirror Group Newspaper (UK, 2004)

Case 4: Von Hannover v Germany (European Court of Human Rights, 2004)


The Event ： On 18 November 2000, the famous film stars Michael Dougla

s and Catherine Zeta-Jones married and held a reception at the Plaza Hotel, New York.

Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones decided to release one official wedding photograph to all media outlets on the day of the wedding and to sell the exclusive rights to a selection of other official wedding photographs for later publication.

A bidding war to obtain this exclusive rights of publication was wage between the publishers of the rival British magazines Hello! and OK!. Subsequently, Douglas and Zeta-Jones signed a contract for £1 million with OK!.


The Event ： (continued)

However, a paparazzo had managed to penetrate the security and took some photos of the wedding. These unauthorised photographs were immediately bought by Hello! for £125,000.

After a series of within-days lawsuits, both OK! and Hallo! Had their editions of the wedding photos published on the same date.

The Lawsuit: Douglas and Zeta-Jones sue Hello! for liability citing stress, l

oss of income, and damage to their professional careers because of the poor quality of the images.


The Ruling: In 2003, Justice Lindsay of the English High Court ruled that

there have been a breach of a confidence and detriment of all three parties, namely Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and OK!

By confidence, Justice Lindsay ruled that the information in question, Douglases’wedding as “trade secret” and the photos as “commodity” and “valuable trade asset”

The ruling implies the distinction between the law of confidentiality (data protection) and law of privacy

The ruling also implies the distinction between civil right and property right


The Event: Naomi Campbell is an internationally-known celebrity model.

Campbell had, in the past, publicly asserted that she did not take drugs. The Mirror newspaper obtained information that Campbell was attending meetings of Narcotics Anonymous to treat a drug addiction. The Mirror published an article revealing that Campbell was a drug addict and praising her for seeking treatment. The article was accompanied by photographs of Campbell depicting her in a public street leaving an Narcotics Anonymous meeting. The photographs were taken by means a telephoto lens while the freelance photographer was concealed in a parked car.


The Lawsuit: Naomi Campbell sue the Mirror Group Newspaper of of violat

ion of Campbell's right to privacy and breach of confidence.


The Rulings: At first, the court ruled that Daily Mirror’s publication of the

article constitute breached of confidence and detriment to Campbell

In the Court of Appeal, the judge ruled that there is no breach of confidence and “Mirror was entitled to the media exemption.”

In the House of Lords, in a 3/2 split decision, it is ruled in favor of Campbell. Applying Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights to the case, the court ruled that Campbell’s right of privacy trumped freedom of expression of the press.


The Rulings: The case involves breach of confidence because Ms Campbel

l’s undertaking drug rehabilitation was her confidence. The case did not involve money as the Douglases’ case did. H

owever it did invoke the public’s right to know the truth, especially since Ms Campbell had lied about her drug addiction.

The ruling made reference to Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and weighted the essentiality of right to privacy over that of freedom of expression.

Case 4: The case of Von Hannover vs. Germany (2004 European Court of Human Rights)

The Lawsuit: Princess Caroline von Hannover is the eldest daughter of Prince Rai

nier III of Monaco and the late Hollywood star Grace Kelly. “Beginning in the early 1990s, Caroline initiated legal actions in the

Hamburg Regional Court over photos taken in France and published in the German magazine Bunte, Freizeit Revue, and Neue Post. The photos (published along with articles) showed her in ordinary scenes of her everyday life….Most of photos had been taken secretly…from a distance of several hundred meters.”

Caroline attempted several times through German courts to prevent the publication of the photos but all in vain.

Finally, In 2000 Caroline petitioned the European Court of Human Rights, alleged that Germany had breached her right to respect for her private life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.


The Ruling: The European Court of Human Rights ruled that German law

failed to provide proper privacy protection for the Princess Caroline in respect of a variety of photos of her private life published in the German press.

The ruling made a clear demarcation between public figures’ public and private lives. Accordingly, the court ruled that freedom of the press cannot intrude into public figures’ “private” life

The ruling implied that Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (concerns the right of privacy) may have overriding power over Article 10 (concerns freedom of expression) in the Convention.

The Ruling: The European Court of Human Rights stated that "increase

vigilance in protecting private life is necessary to contend with new communication technologies which make it possible to store and reproduce personal data. This also applies to the systematic taking of specific photos and their dissemination to a broad section of the public."


Definition of the Issue: Identifying the opposing parties and their arguments

Individuals, celebrities, public figures and public officials, who are intruded by mass media, demand for protections of their right to confidentiality and privacy.

Mass media argue for freedom of the press and expression, right to scrutinize public figures, and enactment of public’s right to know

Social Inquiry (P=Pros, C=Cons)

P1 Paparazzi photographing are intrusion of privacy.P2 Publications of paparazzi photos are intrusion of privacy.P3 Paparazzi photographing are infringement of confidentiality P4 Publications of paparazzi photos are infringement of

confidentiality.P5 Publications of paparazzi photos are act of dissemination of

indecent and/or obscene articles.C1 Paparazzi photographing are acts of revelation of facts to the

public and fulfillment of public’s right to know.C2 Publications of paparazzi photos are acts of revelation of facts

to the public and fulfillment of public’s right to know.C3 Paparazzi photographing are enactments of freedom of speech.C4 Publications of paparazzi photos are enactments of freedom of

speech.C5 Publications of paparazzi photos are commercial decisions

governed by market demand.

Value Inquiry

P1 Public figures’ (including celebrities’) right of privacy should not be infringed.

C1 Exposures of private lives to the public are part of the publicity strategies of public figures, especially celebrities.

P2 Public figures’ right to confidentiality should be endorsed by the public and especially the mass media.

C2 Public figures' conducts and lives in general are part of the domain of public interests. They are subjected to public accountability and scrutiny.

C3 Mass media have the right and obligation of revelation of facts and of fulfillment of public's right to know.

P3 Mass media's right to reveal facts are not unlimited and they should be restrained outside the boundary of individual privacy.

C4 Mass media have the right to free speech, which include publishing confidential and objectionable information concerning public figures.

P4 Public figures' right to confidentiality should be respected and endorsed by the mass media and the public in general.

Institutional Inquiry

Mandates of the Obscene Articles Tribunal ( 淫褻物品審裁處 ) and the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance ( 《淫褻及不雅物品管制條例》 )

Mandates of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data( 個人資料私隱專員公署 ) and Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance( 《個人資料 ( 私隱 ) 條例》 )

The reports of the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong on: Civil Liability for Invasion of Privacy 《侵犯私隱的民事責任報

告書》 (Dec., 2004) Privacy and Media Intrusion 《傳播媒介的侵犯私隱行為報告

書》 (Dec., 2004) Freedom of expression stipulated in The International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights and its conflict with individual privacy.

Comparative Inquiry

The case of Douglas and others vs. Hello! The ruling implies the distinction between the law of confident

iality (data protection) and law of privacy: The ruling implies t

hat The photographing and publishing of wedding photos did not co

nstitute intrusion of privacy because the wedding was held in public facility and the couple had sold the exclusive right of publishing the photos to a magazine.

These acts did constitute breach of confidence because the wedding was considered to be a “trade secret” and the photos were “commodities” and valuable trade asset”

The ruling also implies the distinction between civil right and property right: The case did not imply the violation of civil right of privacy but did involve the violation of property right of the Douglases and OK!

Comparative Inquiry

The case of Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspaper The case involves breach of confidence because Ms Campbell

’s undertaking drug rehabilitation was her confidence. The case did not involve money as the Douglases’ case did. H

owever it did invoke the public’s right to know the truth, especially since Ms Campbell had lied about her drug addiction.

The ruling made reference to Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and weighted the essentiality of right to privacy over that of freedom of expression.

Comparative Inquiry

The case of Von Hannover vs. Germany The ruling made a clear demarcation between public figures’

public and private lives. Accordingly, the court ruled that freedom of the press cannot intrude into public figures’ “private” life

The ruling implied that Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (concerns the right of privacy) may have overriding power over Article 10 (concerns freedom of expression) in the Convention.

The European Court of Human Rights stated that "increase vigilance in protecting private life is necessary to contend with new communication technologies which make it possible to store and reproduce personal data. This also applies to the systematic taking of specific photos and their dissemination to a broad section of the public."

Decision Making

Identifying alternative Categorization of information/photos

Indecent or obscene informationPrivate information Confidential information

Classification of act Obtaining the information in public facilitiesObtaining the information I private facilitiesObtaining the information by means of covert surveillanceObtaining the information in other illegal meansDisseminating to designated "private" sourcesDisseminating to the public

Decision Making

Identifying alternative Nature of the offence

Criminal offenceCivil offenceUnethical offence

Curriculum-Content Analysis

On the theme of Impact of Globalization The advancement of information technology and

technology of scrutiny and control in general have fundamental changed the boundary of private and public sphere.

Private sphere is no long defined in terms of physical spaces, such as one's home, bedroom, changing room, etc. Private sphere has transformed into sphere of information flows.


On the theme of Interpersonal Relationship A new form of pure relation emerges, i.e. spectator and

celebrity relation. It is one of the purest forms of the pure relation in IT age. There is no "institutional bondage" or even any other kind of bondages on the part of the spectators. The spectators can turn on and off the relation any time they want without any social and/or emotional responsibility entailed.

On the part of the celebrities, they instrumentally use this relation and the industry of public relation and publicity to build up their fame.

On the part of the mass media, they are but the magnifying and accelerating machine in the virtual stadium, where spectator and celebrities meet.


On the theme of Quality of Life Redefining quality of life in virtual world to include

right to privacy and confidentiality. Protection of right to privacy and confidentiality as

part of the governmental responsibilities of modern state especially in the IT age.

On the theme of Rule of Law Rule of law as means of protection of right to

privacy and confidentiality Rule of law as means of protection of freedom of

the press and speech.

Sample of Issue-Inquiry Design: 2

Desecration of National Flag is a Criminal Offense

Incidents:

Case 1: HKSAR Government vs. Ng Kung-siu and Lee Kin-yun

Mr. Ng and Mr Lee displayed the national flag of the PRC and regional flag of the HKSAR, which had been desecrated, during the rally organized by the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China (支聯會 ) on January 1 1998.

Case 2: Texas vs. Johnson

Gregory L. Johnson burnt the American Flag on August 22, 1984, during the Republic Party’s convention in Dallas

香港特區政府訴吳恭劭利建潤事件：

1998 年 1 月 1 日，吳恭劭（ 25 歲）及利建潤（ 19歲），參與支聯會舉辦的元旦民主遊行期間﹐公開展示被毀壞的國旗和區旗﹐並在兩面旗上寫上「恥」字。被展示的國旗上的五星被塗污﹐區旗的洋紫荊圖案則畫上了一個大交叉。

警方當時並沒有即時阻止有關行為﹐亦沒有即時拘控涉案人士﹐待一個月後才向二人發出傳票﹐正式予以起訴。

1998 年 5 月，在裁判署審訊後﹐法庭裁定二人違反上述兩條法例罪名成立﹐各被判以四千元保釋﹐守行為一年﹐如果他在守行為期間再干犯任何罪行﹐即需沒有四千元保釋金。


1989 年 3 月 23 日，上訴庭裁定國旗和區旗法限制公眾的言論及發表自由﹐違反《基本法》及國際人權公約﹐法例屬無效﹐因而撤銷兩名在元旦日遊行中損毀國旗區旗的示威者之罪名。

司徒冕指出﹐兩名示威者當日和平請願﹐並無使用暴力﹔塗污國旗和區旗﹐不足以對社會造成嚴重滋擾動亂。英國憲制也把損毀國旗肯定為自由發表權利之一﹐而大部分主要行使普通法的地區﹐也沒有把損毀國旗例作刑事罪行。

律政司高級助理刑事檢控專員布思義聞悉判決後﹐即時以案件涉及重大法律爭拗為由﹐向上訴庭要求上訴終審法院﹐並獲批准。


1989 年 12 月 15 日，終審法院一致裁定塗污國旗區旗屬刑事罪行﹐並強調國旗和區旗象徵‘一國兩制’﹐在確保公眾秩序的前提下﹐有必要有限度地限制言論自由﹐因此恢復示威常客吳恭劭和利建潤的定罪﹐維持自簽二千元守行為一年的判罰。

終審法院首席法官李國能在書面判詞首數段﹐便開宗明義地表明‘國旗代表中華人民共和國﹐代表她的尊嚴﹑統一及領土的完整’﹔區旗是‘一國兩制方針下﹐中華人民共和國不可分離部分的獨有象徵’。

他續說﹕‘制定國旗條例第七條及區旗條例第七條﹐是為保障公共秩序所必要﹐這兩條條文對發表自由的權利施加限制﹐具有充分理據支持﹐亦符合憲法。’

Desecration of National Flag is a Criminal Offense(Case 1: Texas vs. Johnson)


Texas vs. Gregory Lee Johnson

The incidents Gregory L. Johnson set fire on the American flag

during the protest against the Republication National Convention. No one was physically injured. He was arrested and charged with the crime of flag burning and found guilty in a Texas court.

Johnson appealed his conviction to the Texas of Appeal. Arguing that Johnson’s burning of the flag was his way of expressing his opposition to the Republication Party. His lawyer maintained that flag burning is an act of free speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


The incidents The Texas Court of Appeal agreed that Johnson’s

act of flag burning as a form of expression was protected by the 1st Amendment and therefore reversed Johnson’s conviction.

The State of Texas took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 21 1989, the US Supreme Court ruled that the act of flag burning is protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution and criminalizing flag burning is unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote.


The incidents Right after the Supreme Court’s rule, the US Congre

ss passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989 criminalizing any act of desecration of the US flags including burning.

Shortly after the pass of the Flag Protection Act, another group of protesters set fire to several US flags on the step of the US Capitol Building and creating the case of U.S. vs. Eichman.

The US Supreme Court upheld its previous ruling by stipulating that flag burning is constitutionally protected.


The incidents Since then the US Congress has tried to amend the

constitution eight times but all of them have been in vain.

What is At Issue? Definition of the Issue

Case 1: Mr. Ng and Mr. Lee's acts are criminal offences in

contrary to the National Flag and Nation Emblem Ordinance and the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance.

Their acts are acts of public protests and the enactment of the right of freedom of expression. And freedom of expression is endorsed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is in turn endorsed by the Basic Law of HKSAR.

What is At Issue? Definition of the Issue

Case 2 National flag is the venerated symbol of a nation and

should be respected and protected. Any act of desecration of the national flag may disturb public orders, trigger public anger and disturbance. US Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989 criminalized flag burning in the US.

National-flag burning is a symbolic expression of protest and discontent about political and/or social incidents. It is an enactment of the freedom of expression/speech, which is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And the Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is constitutionally protected.

Factual-Social Inquiry (P=Pros; C=Cons)

P1 Desecrating the national flag is an act of insulting the symbol of nationhood and national unity / a venerated object of the nation

P2 Desecrating the national flag is an act of breaching the peace of the community

Factual-Social Inquiry (P=Pros; C=Cons)

C1 Desecrating of the national flag is a symbolic speech and therefore is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the US, which states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

C2 Freedom of speech protected minority views, which may be objectionable to the majority of the society

Value Inquiry

P1 National flag is a venerated object representing the nationhood and national unity of the nation, hence any act of desecrating it is a criminal offense.

C1 Act of burning the national flag is an endorsement of the venerated status of the flag, but an act of expressing disrespect or protest of some political stance it stand for

Value Inquiry

P2 Desecrating the national flag is an inflammatory act, which may ignite public anger and/or disturbances.

C2 Any desecration of public symbols, such as crosses, Stars of David, sign of the Nazi will also ignite anger and/or violent responses from the respective supporters. It is for this reason that minority political views should be guard against tyranny of the mass.

Institutional inquiry

Is freedom of expression protected by the HKSAR Basic Law?

Is nation and SAR and national flags protected the Basic Law?

Does Flag desecration violate Criminal Laws and is it protected by HKSAR Basic Law?

Comparative-multicultural inquiry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration Australia Canada Denmark The US The UK

Decision-making

Identifying alternatives: Criminalizing acts of Hurting or even assassinating public officials Damaging public property Burning publicly displayed national flag in public Burning privately owned national flag in public Burning privately owned national flag of other countries in

public Burning privately owned national flag in private Burning a copy of the Constitution, e.g. the Basic Law Burning the puppets indicating public officials Refusing to salute the national flag Refusing to stand up as the nation emblem are played

Decision-making

Predicting consequences Causing international criticism of violating human right of

freedom of expression Causing chaos to the newly established “One-Country-Two-

System” Igniting public angers and disturbances (Burning other national flags of other countries) Causing

international disputes and diplomatic turmoil

Curriculum-Form Analysis

Hong Kong Today Modern China Globalization

Post-traditional society

Other Examples

Stones from other Mountains: Issue-Inquiry Approaches in the UK and US

General Studies in UK http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/websites/16/site/gene

ral_studies.shtml http://www.edexcel.org.uk/quals/gce/general/as/820

6/

Issue inquiry approach in the U.S. http://www.dushkin.com/usingts/ http://www.criticalthinking.org/index.cfm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/websites/16/site/general_studies.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/websites/16/site/general_studies.shtml

http://www.edexcel.org.uk/quals/gce/general/as/8206/

http://www.edexcel.org.uk/quals/gce/general/as/8206/

http://www.dushkin.com/usingts/

http://www.criticalthinking.org/index.cfm

http://www.criticalthinking.org/index.cfm

Example Issue 1: Passive Euthanasia

Should euthanasia be legalized? (Edexcel Advanced Subsidiary GCE in General Studies: Coursework Guide) http://www.edexcel.org.uk/VirtualContent/48417/GCE_General_Studies_Coursework_Guide.pdf

Should doctors ever help terminally ill patients to committed suicide? (Issue 6 in Daniel, E (Ed.) (2004) Taking Sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in health and society, 6th edition, Guilford: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.)

http://www.edexcel.org.uk/VirtualContent/48417/GCE_General_Studies_Coursework_Guide.pdf

http://www.edexcel.org.uk/VirtualContent/48417/GCE_General_Studies_Coursework_Guide.pdf

Example Issue 1: Passive Euthanasia

Should physicians be allowed to assist in patient suicide? (Issue 5 in Levine, C. (Ed.) (1997) Taking Sides: Clashing views on controversial bioethical issues, 7th edition, Guilford: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.)

「癱瘓者 ( 斌仔 ) 用嘴打信 , 函立會求安樂死」《明報》 2004 年 4 月 20 日

斌仔去函立法會要求安樂死

事件探究《明報》 2004年 4月 20日「癱瘓者 ( 斌仔 )用嘴打信 , 函立會求安樂死」

Example Issue 2: GM Food

Is biotechnology an environmentally sound way to increase food production? (Issue 6 in Goldfarb, T.D. (Ed.) (1999) Taking Sides: Clashing views on controversial environmental issues, 8th edition, Guilford: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.)

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food http://

www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php http://www.newscientist.com

/channel/opinion/gm-food/



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/gm-food/



Example Issue 2: GM Food

Campbell, J. 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods in

http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm

http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm

Example Issue 3: Human Coning

Should human cloning ever be permitted? (Issue 9 in Daniel, E. (Ed.) Taking Sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in health and society, 6th edition, Guilford: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.)

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning http://www.arhp.org/patienteducation/onlinebrochures/c

loning/index.cfm?ID=282



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning

http://www.arhp.org/patienteducation/onlinebrochures/cloning/index.cfm?ID=282



Example Issue 4: Same-Sex Marriage

Should same-sex couple be able to marry? (Issue 11 in Schroedor, E. (Ed.) (2005) Taking Sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in family and personal relationship, 6th edition, Guilford: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.)

Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to protect the “sanctity of marriage”? (Issue 12 in Schroedor, E. (Ed.) (2005) Taking Sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in family and personal relationship, 6th edition, Guilford: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.)

Can Lesbian and gay couples be appropriate parents for children? (Issue 13 in Schroedor, E. (Ed.) (2005) Taking Sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in family and personal relationship, 6th edition, Guilford: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.)

Example Issue 5: Desecration of National Flag is a Criminal Offense

Desecration of National Flag is a Criminal Offense(Case 1: Texas vs. Johnson)



The incidents Gregory L. Johnson set fire on the American flag

during the protest against the Republication National Convention. No one was physically injured. He was arrested and charged with the crime of flag burning and found guilty in a Texas court.

Johnson appealed his conviction to the Texas of Appeal. Arguing that Johnson’s burning of the flag was his way of expressing his opposition to the Republication Party. His lawyer maintained that flag burning is an act of free speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


The incidents The Texas Court of Appeal agreed that Johnson’s

act of flag burning as a form of expression was protected by the 1st Amendment and therefore reversed Johnson’s conviction.

The State of Texas took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 21 1989, the US Supreme Court ruled that the act of flag burning is protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution and criminalizing flag burning is unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote.


The incidents Right after the Supreme Court’s rule, the US Congre

ss passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989 criminalizing any act of desecration of the US flags including burning.

Shortly after the pass of the Flag Protection Act, another group of protesters set fire to several US flags on the step of the US Capitol Building and creating the case of U.S. vs. Eichman.

The US Supreme Court upheld its previous ruling by stipulating that flag burning is constitutionally protected.


The incidents Since then the US Congress has tried to amend the

constitution eight times but all of them have been in vain.

香港特區政府起訴吳恭劭利建潤事件：

1998 年 1 月 1 日，吳恭劭（ 25 歲）及利建潤（ 19歲），參與支聯會舉辦的元旦民主遊行期間﹐公開展示被毀壞的國旗和區旗﹐並在兩面旗上寫上「恥」字。被展示的國旗上的五星被塗污﹐區旗的洋紫荊圖案則畫上了一個大交叉。

警方當時並沒有即時阻止有關行為﹐亦沒有即時拘控涉案人士﹐待一個月後才向二人發出傳票﹐正式予以起訴。

1998 年 5 月，在裁判署審訊後﹐法庭裁定二人違反上述兩條法例罪名成立﹐各被判以四千元保釋﹐守行為一年﹐如果他在守行為期間再干犯任何罪行﹐即需沒有四千元保釋金。


1999 年 3 月 23 日，上訴庭裁定國旗和區旗法限制公眾的言論及發表自由﹐違反《基本法》及國際人權公約﹐法例屬無效﹐因而撤銷兩名在元旦日遊行中損毀國旗區旗的示威者之罪名。

司徒冕指出﹐兩名示威者當日和平請願﹐並無使用暴力﹔塗污國旗和區旗﹐不足以對社會造成嚴重滋擾動亂。英國憲制也把損毀國旗肯定為自由發表權利之一﹐而大部分主要行使普通法的地區﹐也沒有把損毀國旗例作刑事罪行。

律政司高級助理刑事檢控專員布思義聞悉判決後﹐即時以案件涉及重大法律爭拗為由﹐向上訴庭要求上訴終審法院﹐並獲批准。


1999 年 12 月 15 日，終審法院一致裁定塗污國旗區旗屬刑事罪行﹐並強調國旗和區旗象徵‘一國兩制’﹐在確保公眾秩序的前提下﹐有必要有限度地限制言論自由﹐因此恢復示威常客吳恭劭和利建潤的定罪﹐維持自簽二千元守行為一年的判罰。

終審法院首席法官李國能在書面判詞首數段﹐便開宗明義地表明‘國旗代表中華人民共和國﹐代表她的尊嚴﹑統一及領土的完整’﹔區旗是‘一國兩制方針下﹐中華人民共和國不可分離部分的獨有象徵’。

他續說﹕‘制定國旗條例第七條及區旗條例第七條﹐是為保障公共秩序所必要﹐這兩條條文對發表自由的權利施加限制﹐具有充分理據支持﹐亦符合憲法。’

Definition of the Issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration National-flag burning is a symbolic expression of

protest and discontent about political and/or social incidents. It is an enactment of the freedom of expression/speech, which is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Basic Law of HKSAR, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

National flag is the venerated symbol of a nation and should be respected and protected. Any act of desecration of the national flag may disturb public orders, trigger public anger and disturbance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration


The flag burning issues can be related to the following curriculum content areas of Liberal Studies Post-traditional society theory: National flag as part of the

national tradition, which has to be undergone interrogation and to justify itself in its own right in post-traditional society

Individual identity: In connection to freedom of speech, individual is identified as free agent endowed with human right of free speech and expression even the expression is socially objectionable . In connection to protection of nation flag and dignity, individual is identified as national citizen or even patriot. In connection to public order


Definitional inquiry What is freedom of speech? What is desecration of national flag?

Factual inquiry Is national-flag burning enactment of freedom of expression? Is national-flag burning act of desecrating nationally

venerated symbol and national pride and dignity and itself? Will national-flag burning cause public disturbances and

violations of public orders?


Value inquiry Value of freedom of speech? Value of national flag, symbols, pride and dignity Value of public orders Value conflict between freedom of expression and national flag Value conflict between freedom of expression and igniting

public angers and disturbances.

Institutional inquiry Is freedom of expression protected by the HKSAR Basic Law? Is nation and SAR and national flags protected the Basic Law? Does Flag desecration violate Criminal Laws and is it protected

by HKSAR Basic Law?


Comparative-multicultural inquiry Australia Canada Denmark The UK The US

Decision-making

Identifying alternatives: Criminalizing acts of Hurting or even assassinating public officials Damaging public property Burning publicly displayed national flag in public Burning privately owned national flag in public Burning privately owned national flag of other countries in

public Burning privately owned national flag in private Burning a copy of the Constitution, e.g. the Basic Law Burning the puppets indicating public officials Refusing to salute the national flag Refusing to stand up as the nation emblem are played

Decision-making

Predicting consequences Causing international criticism of violating human right of

freedom of expression Causing chaos to the newly established “One-Country-Two-

System” Igniting public angers and disturbances (Burning other national flags of other countries) Causing

international disputes and diplomatic turmoil

Lecture 7Understanding the Curriculum Form of Liberal Studies:

Conception of Issue Inquiry Approach

End

MCL 6224 Issues in the Development of Liberal Studies Lecture 3 Development of the Pedagogical Approach to Liberal Studies in the HKSAR.

Documents

xthe noun issue

issue worthy of inquiring

hksar slide

judgement slide

reasonable persons

controversial issues

john rawls

willfulness rawls