Citizens challenge mask-wearing at school
On Thursday 20 January, two citizens challenged the Uccle municipal council over compulsory mask-wearing in primary schools. Mask-wearing at school is an unjustified measure, according to Sabine Moens de Ferning and Laurence Vandeputte. They put their questions to the mayor and aldermen at the last council meeting. For their intervention, they drew on several sources, ranging from the WHO to the Rights of the Child.
“Numerous studies now sufficiently establish the damage that such a measure can cause to the cognitive and psychological development of young children”: the two citizens listed the adverse effects linked to mask-wearing “by the general public, by healthy people” which the WHO has identified: a potentially increased risk of self-contamination from handling a face mask and then touching one’s eyes with contaminated hands, possible headaches and/or breathing difficulties, skin problems, difficulty communicating clearly.
Why not ventilate instead?
The two women also referred to the analysis by the blog #covidrationnel, which publishes the GEMS recommendation “to equip schools with a few simple, portable CO2 measuring devices” as well as that of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation to air classrooms. This analysis concludes as follows: “ventilation should be THE priority non-pharmaceutical measure. Unlike all the measures put forward so far, airing and ventilation do not have harmful side effects on education, living together or economic activity”.
The two authors of the challenge also cite Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: “In all actions concerning children, (…) the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”.
Three questions without a clear answer
They concluded their challenge with three questions – which, unsurprisingly, did not receive a clear answer:
- Given the potential dangers of mask-wearing for young children, how can the education aldermanship decide to impose these measures in the Uccle municipal schools for which it is responsible? Why did the aldermanship, or even the Board, not opt for the precautionary principle mentioned above?
- Is the municipality of Uccle, represented by the Mayor and Aldermen, prepared to bear financial responsibility for any cognitive damage caused by mask-wearing to young children attending municipal schools? If so, what procedure has it planned, and has it informed parents?
- How does the municipality explain that it can break the Codeco rules for culture, but does not do the same when it comes to the well-being of children and the protection of their physical and mental integrity?
As inspiration for possible similar initiatives in other municipalities, BAM! is publishing the full text of the challenge as an opinion piece [1].
By Thérèse Leblanc, journalist at BAM!
Link to the opinion piece in BAM!:
https://bam.news/tribune/interpellation-citoyenne-uccle/
Photo source:
AdobeStock_331389081
