€55,000 funding for anti-bullying training

first_imgNewsEducation€55,000 funding for anti-bullying trainingBy John Keogh – September 17, 2014 715 TAGSbullyingDepartment of EducationEducation Minister Jan O’Sullivan Advertisement Delay in Limerick schools patronage process ‘unacceptable’ Previous articleFree tests in Limerick to protect against sight lossNext article1,000 Limerick people run 5k with Ray John Keoghhttp://www.limerickpost.ie Beyond the neon runes New UL president invited independent inquiry WhatsApp Jan O’Sullivan, the Limerick minister who will be involved in the launch of the new energuy initiative “Let’s Conserve Energy Together Better.”Education Minister Jan O’SullivanEDUCATION Minister Jan O’Sullivan has announced that €55,000 in additional funding is to be provided for nationwide anti-bullying training sessions for parents this year.This figure is in addition to the €60,000 originally allocated this year, bringing the total allocation for 2014 to €115,000.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up The Anti-Bullying Parent Training Programme is run jointly by the National Parents Council Primary NPC-P and the National Parents Council Post Primary NPC-PP to support the implementation of the Action Plan on Bullying, which called for training and resources for parents and boards of management.Minister O’Sullivan commented: “I recognise the very high level of demand among parents for this type of training.  Parents need the tools and know-how to support their children in preventing bullying from happening and in dealing with it when it does arise – in particular, I have already been contacted by many parents who are seeking more support in helping their children to combat cyberbullying.”She also thanked the NPC-P and the NPC-PP for their work in delivering the sessions and noted the very positive feedback from participants.The Minister encouraged all parents to avail of the training  and said: “Everyone in the wider community has an important role to play in tackling all forms of bullying and in teaching children how to manage relationships, be resilient and have empathy for others. Bullying is not a problem schools can or should be left to tackle alone.”In 2013, funding of €60,000 supported the delivery of 105 anti-bullying parent training sessions to 3,279 parents nationwide.It is expected that the funding in 2014 will allow more than 200 sessions to be organised throughout the country. Printcenter_img Linkedin Read Your Mind launches in Limerick City and County Libraries Email RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR 142 Limerick schools benefit from minor works scheme Twitter €20 million funding plan for Limerick Institute of Technology Facebooklast_img read more

Supreme Court Order Evicting Slum Dwellers Violates Their Basic Human Rights To Housing, Shelter And Livelihood

first_imgColumnsSupreme Court Order Evicting Slum Dwellers Violates Their Basic Human Rights To Housing, Shelter And Livelihood Swati Agrawal8 Sep 2020 6:45 AMShare This – xIn August 2020, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India ordered removal of 48000 slum dwellings that were around a 140-km railway track in Delhi without providing for any rehabilitation scheme (henceforth called the “Supreme Court Order”).[1] They were ordered to be removed as they were considered to be in the Railway safety zone. The order asks the stakeholders to come up with…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginIn August 2020, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India ordered removal of 48000 slum dwellings that were around a 140-km railway track in Delhi without providing for any rehabilitation scheme (henceforth called the “Supreme Court Order”).[1] They were ordered to be removed as they were considered to be in the Railway safety zone. The order asks the stakeholders to come up with a comprehensive plan for removal of the slums within just three months. In the middle of a pandemic, this judgment puts many people at an increased risk. People living in slums, jhuggis, pavements etc. make important economic contributions towards a city like Delhi. They fill a gap in the supply of labour and contribute to the overall economic development of the city. Protecting their right to housing, shelter and livelihood also plays an important economic function in addition to being a basic human right. A 2020 report[2] by Housing and Land Rights Network has recorded 45 incidents of forced eviction across India during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the report, the conservative estimate of forced evictions in 2019 was 22,247 which affected 107,625 people. Forced evictions violate the internationally recognized right to adequate housing and multiple other human rights. They also violate our national legal position on the right to livelihood that has been recognized as part of the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21). In the well-known Olga Tellis[3] case, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India recognized that for slum-dwellers, forced evictions mean loss of livelihood which is part of Article 21. This case did not find a mention in the August 2020 order of the Supreme Court. Olga Tellis case would be binding on account of its judgment being delivered by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Problems with the Supreme Court Order One of the major problems with the August 2020 Supreme Court Order is lack of consultation or representation of the slum dwellers.[4] The fundamental/human rights of a group of people have been violated without even giving them a hearing in the case. The second major problem with the judgment is that it does not mention rehabilitation of slum dwellers anywhere. In 2010, the Delhi High Court while recognizing the “right to shelter”, asked for the petitioners (jhuggi dweller) to be considered for relocation under existing schemes. Last year also, the Delhi HC had held that forceful eviction of slumdwellers, without making provisions for their rehabilitation, was unconstitutional.A similar direction in the August 2020 Supreme Court Order was vital for protection of the rights of the slum dwellers. The authorities should have been directed to conduct a survey of the residents and to provide for an effective rehabilitation scheme for them. Efforts must be made to relocate them as near to the existing site of the slums, as possible. There should be public transportation available from the new site to their common work areas. The Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (by Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board) had provided for the procedure for rehabilitation of JJ Bastis in Railway safety zones. They had given a period of 6 months for relocation of the JJ Bastis, and the clearance and handing over of the land. While the Supreme Court of India has given 3 months to the authorities. The importance of notice before forced evictions is self-evident. The authorities have often been callous about giving notice and have razed slums to the ground without adequate notice. Conclusion Although Olga Tellis did talk about right to livelihood, there have been decisions by the Court that have gone against the concept. One of such cases is Almitra Patel[5] case where the Court gave precedence to pollution control and had cast considerable shame on the slum dwellers considering them as illegal occupants of public land. The scorn, disdain and dismissive attitude of the Court in Almitra Patel case was also followed in other cases including the order being discussed. Our civic sense or protection of public property cannot come t the cost of the fundamental and human rights of slum dwellers. If the problem is the environment, then provide better sanitation facilities. If we want to protect public land, then let’s provide them with adequate substitute housing. The Supreme Court Order also ignores the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. In absence of clear jurisprudence, such policies play an important role. This case shows the need for a comprehensive policy at Central as well as State levels that deals with forced evictions for their respective public lands. These policies should follow the best practices set by the United Nations Special Rappoteur on adequate housing such as appropriate notice, public review and hearings, presence of neutral observers during eviction, rehabilitation and compensation etcetera.[6] The Courts should consider such policies while passing their judgments. Alternatively, they should develop sound jurisprudence to protect the rights of slum dwellers in cases of forced evictions.Views are personal only. (Author is a graduate from the National Law School of India University in 2010. She works in the field of diversity and inclusion.) [1] LiveLaw News Network. (2020, September 3). SC Orders Removal Of 48,000 Slum Dwellings Around Delhi Rail Tracks In 3 Months; Stops Courts From Granting Stay. Accessed September 5, 2020. https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-orders-removal-of-48000-slum-dwellings-around-delhi-rail-tracks-in-3-months-stops-courts-from-granting-stay-162324 [2] Housing and Land Rights Network. 2020. Forced Evictions in India in 2019: An Unrelenting National Crisis. (ISBN: 978-81-935672-8-9). https://www.hlrn.org.in/documents/Forced_Evictions_2019.pdf [3] Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc., 1986 AIR 180. [4] Sahgal, Rishika. (2020, September 5). The Supreme Court’s Eviction Order Ignores the Rights of Jhuggi Dwellers. Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy. https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2020/09/05/guest-post-the-supreme-courts-eviction-order-ignores-the-rights-of-jhuggi-dwellers/ [5] Almitra H. Patel And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 416. [6] 2007. Basic Principles And Guidelines On Development based Evictions And Displacement: Annex 1 of the report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living. (A/HRC/4/18). https://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/housing/docs/guidelines_en.pdf Next Storylast_img read more