edd 5229 liberal studies in knowledge society lecture 8 -9 understanding the

EDD 5229Liberal Studies in Knowledge Society

Lecture 8-9Understanding the

Curriculum Form of Liberal Studies:Conception of Issue Inquiry Approach

(Content Knowledge)

(Pedagogical Knowledge)

(Curriculum Aim)

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”.


C. Wright Mills’ distinction between personal trouble and public issue: In the beginning chapter of the book Sociological Imagination, C. Wright Mills makes a useful distinction between “trouble” and “issue” By trouble, Miils refers to problems which “occues within the

characters of the individual and within the range of the immediate relations with others; they have to do with his self and with those limited areas of social life of which he is directly and personally aware. Accordingly, the statement and the resolution of troubles properly lie within the individual as a biographical entity and within the scope of his immediate milieu. A trouble is a private matter: values cherished by an individual are felt by him to be threatened.” (1970, p.15)


C. Wright Mills’ distinction between personal trouble and public issue: By issues, Mills specifies that “Issues have to do with matters

that transcend these local environments of the individual and the range of his inner life. They have to do with the organization of many such milieux into the institutions of a historical society as a whole, with the way in which various milieux overlap and interpenetrate to form the larger structure of social and historical life. An issue is a public matter: some value cherished by the public is felt threatened.” (1970, p. 15)


C. Wright Mills’ distinction between personal trouble and public issue: Apart from its public character, Mills also underlines the

contradictory and ambiguous nature of an issue. He states that “often there is a debate about what the values is all about and what it is that really is threatens it. This debate is often without focus if only because it is the very nature of an issue…. An issue, in fact often involves …’contradictions’ or ‘antagonism.’” (1971, p. 15)


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement:


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement:

In his book entitled Political Liberalism, John Rawls makes a distinction between reasonable and unreasonable disagreements. The distinction can further our understanding of the nature and features of the idea of issue. By unreasonable disagreement, it refers to disagreements in p

ublic life, which grow 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)


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement: By reasonable disagreement, John Rawls defines it as

“disagreement between reasonable persons.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 55). In understanding the idea of reasonable person, Rawls makes a distinction between rational and reasonable persons within the conception of modern man.

“Persons are reasonable in one basic aspect when, among equals say, they are ready to propose principles and standards as fair terms of cooperation and to abide by them willingly, given the assurance that others will likewise do so. ….The reasonable is an element of the idea of society as a system of fair cooperation and that its fair terms be reasonable for all to accept is part of its idea of reciprocity.” (1993, 49-50)


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement: “The rational is, however, a distinct idea from the reasonable and

applied to a single, unified agent (either an individual or corporate person) with the powers of judgment and deliberation in seeking ends and interests peculiarly its own. The ration applies to how these ends and interests are adopted and affirmed, as well as to how they are given priority. It also applies to the choice of means, in which case it is guided by such familiar principles as: to adopt the most effective means to ends, or to select the most probable alternative, other things equal. (1993, p. 50) More specifically, “what rational agents lack is the particular form of moral sensibility that underlies the desire to engage in fair cooperation. …Rational agents approach being psychopathic when their interests are solely in benefits to themselves.” (1993, p. 51) As in everyday speech, we may characterize rational agents that “their proposal was perfectly rational given their strong bargaining position, but it was nevertheless highly unreasonable.” (1993, 48)


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement: Accordingly, a reasonable disagreement is not disagreement

generated prejudice, bias, ignorance, or even rational calculation of self-interest. They are disagreement between persons “who have an enduring desire to honor fair terms of cooperation and to be fully cooperating members of society.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 55).


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement: Rawls has specified numbers of sources, from which

disagreement among reasonable citizens in constitutional democracy could have derived. More specifically, Rawls suggests, “these sources I refer to as the burden of judgment.” (1993, p. 55) That is, if reasonable citizens have to come to term with (not completely resolve) their disagreements, they are burdened with reasonable judgments on the following sources of reasonable disagreements


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement: …sources of reasonable disagreements

Availability and reliability 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 disagreement derives on the ground that the evidences required to settle the dispute are in conflict or unavailable. 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 and relative weight of evidences: In cases where evidences have been scientifically and empirically proven to be reliable, disputes may still derive on the ground that the evidences in point are irrelevant to the issues in dispute. Furthermore, “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 how relative weights should be assigned to different evidences relevant to the issue in dispute.



Judgment and interpretation of concepts: People’s concepts, not only moral and political concept but also empirical and factual concepts, are “vague and subject to hard cases; and this indeterminacy means that we must rely on judgment and interpretation (and on judgment about interpretation) within some range (not sharply specifiable).” (1993, p. 56) This is another source where reasonable disagreement may have invoked.



Value judgments and preferences: Disagreements may not only involve judgments of factual evidences, but may also be caused by 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 may derive.



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 values and 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, 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. However, reasonable citizens may disagree on whether institutional imperatives should be imposed on particular sets of social actions and/or interactions, for examples controversies over restriction of smoking in in-door areas, legalization of same-sex marriages, etc.


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement: 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.


The nature of issue-inquiry approach to Liberal Studies In light of C.Wright Mills’ conception of issues and John Rawls

theory of reasonable disagreement political liberalism, we may define the enquiry object, i.e. a issue with the following attributes

Issues are public in nature. They differ from personal trouble or problem, which involves individuals' personalities and/or milieux. Issues usually involve institutional or systemic deficiencies and their impacts of individuals' livelihoods and well beings.

Issues are disputatious, contradictory or even antagonistic in nature because they usually embedded in some institutional and systemic arrangements, which invoke contradiction or even antagonism among different social groupings in social institutions and systems.


The nature of issue-inquiry approach to Liberal Studies Accordingly, issue enquiry may categorize into different

aspects of burden of judgment. Factual and empirical judgment:

• Empirical verification• Judgments on the relevance and relative weight of the verified

evidences• Judgments on the interpretation of concepts

Value and preference judgment• Judgment on the relevance values and preferences• Judgment on value priority


The nature of issue-inquiry approach to Liberal Studies … different aspects of burden of judgment.

Institutional judgment• Relevance and legitimacy of positional and experiential

considerations• Legitimacy and respectability of normative and cultural

consideration• Appropriateness of institutional imperatives

Teaching of IEA: UK and US Experiences

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)

Issue Inquiry Approach in the UK and US

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)

Dimensions of IEA Models

Decision-making Models: In the book entitled Teaching Strategies for the Social Studies, James A. Banks constructed the following teaching for making decision on controversial issues in social studies curriculum. The model basically consists of three components: Social inquiry Value inquiry Rational decision

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


The institutional dimension: Cleo H. Cherryholmes (1980) suggests that apart from the what he call the “decision making theorem”, which basically coincides with Banks’ decision-making model, in preparing reasonable citizens in constitutional democracy, the teaching models should also compose of an institutional dimension. He underlines that “social decisions are made in the context of social institutions. Given the decision-making theorem and decisions that are made in institutional setting, …students should be aware of and sensitive to their institutional environments if they are to be effective and responsible decision makers.” (Cherryholmes, 1980, p. 121-122)


The institutional dimension:

…Cherryholmes specifies the “institutional theorem as following:

“Citizenship education should help students learn about and analyze institutional contexts and processes by which individual and group decisions are made.” (1980, p. 121)

Accordingly, students may be guided to enquire into What is the history of their institutions? What actions are permitted? What actions are proscribed? What is prescribed? What is the verification, justification underlying the prevaili

ng institutional arrangements?


The multicultural dimension: As national societies and ethnic groups are drawn closer both spatially and temporally by global-informational networks, educators such as James A. Banks propose that multicultural dimensions such as added into the teaching model preparing future citizens to make reasonable decisions on public issues. Banks has put forth a five-dimension model for multicultural education as follow.

A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry Approach for Liberal Studies

In light of the precedent discussions, a teaching framework for the LS in NSSC with following constituents may be constructed


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 polluted; 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 factual inquiry: Relevance, priority and interpretation of factual evidences:

According to John Rawls formulation, empirically verified fact evidences must further be assessed in terms of its relevance to the issue in contention. Furthermore, even the factual evidences are admitted to be relevant they must be then assessed in terms of their significance to the issue in point. As a result, different weights may be assigned to various evidences and priorities will be assigned to them. Accordingly, based on the evidences and their relativity, one can then characterize the issue in a comprehensive-conceptual interpretation, that is to draw a factual conclusion for the issue.


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 of intrinsic value: Debate between deontologicalist and

institutionalist 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 value inquiry: Taking together all these value considerations, one can

then set priorities to the values concerned and even attribute them to different normative perspectives and worldviews.


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


Controversial Issue

Factual Bases Value Bases

Institutional Bases Comparative Multicultural Bases

Decisions

Judgments

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

美牧師 911燒《可蘭經》

白宮譴責無力制止與回教世界衝突再瀕爆

2010年 09月 09日

後日（周六）是 911襲擊九周年，美國佛羅里達州牧師瓊斯（ Terry Jones），計劃當日公開焚燒回教經典《可蘭經》，既為悼念襲擊中的死者，更要警告伊斯蘭極端分子。各大宗教的領袖齊聲譴責，多個伊斯蘭國家都有抗議，美國國務卿希拉莉更罕有批評，但瓊斯堅持有言論自由權力，他要燒《可蘭經》白宮也束手無策。

牧師 911燒可蘭經希拉莉奈佢唔何

瓊斯所屬教會「達夫世界服務中心」（ Dove World Outreach Centre）位於佛州蓋恩斯維爾（ Gainesville），是個僅有 30名教友的小規模基督教會，崇尚反伊斯蘭教義。他將後日定為「國際焚燒《可蘭經》日」，並在教會外劃出一片草地，作為公開燒經書的地方，支持者紛紛給他寄上 200本《可蘭經》，讓他當晚一把火燒掉。

遭希拉莉批評「具挑釁性」

《可蘭經》是回教經典，穆斯林認為它是真主阿拉的語言，通過大天使傳授給先知穆罕默德。瓊斯要焚燒《可蘭經》，伊斯蘭世界怒不可遏。阿富汗首都喀布爾（ Kabul）和印尼都先後有抗議。阿富汗有回教學者更警告，《可蘭經》若被焚，將觸發全球回教徒向所有基督徒發動聖戰。埃及有回教教士指，若美國政府不能阻止《可蘭經》被焚，勢必破壞美國與伊斯蘭世界的關係。

美國天主教、基督教、回教和猶太教的領袖都齊聲譴責瓊斯的計劃。德國教會也加入陣營指燒《可蘭經》令人震驚，表明跟瓊斯劃清界線。梵蒂岡報章《羅馬觀察家報》的頭條也以「沒有人燒《可蘭經》」為題，指全球基督徒都反對瓊斯的計劃。

白宮也由國務卿希拉莉站出來譴責瓊斯。她前日在國務院出席慶祝回教齋戒月活動時說：「美國所有教宗領袖清晰、一致地譴責他（瓊斯）這不敬、可

燒國旗燒《可蘭經》受美國憲法保護

2010年 09月 09日

美國政府明知佛州牧師瓊斯計劃燒《可蘭經》會掀起全球回教徒怒火，但卻不能阻止，皆因憲法第一修正案賦予他言論自由的權利，就像 3K黨有權燒十字架，或示威者有權燒美國國旗。紐約市長彭博（ Michael Bloomberg）也坦承瓊斯有言論自由的權利保護。

西維珍尼亞大學憲法教授羅布森（ Ruthann Robson）指出，最高法院曾作出多次歷史性裁決，指一些冒犯大多數人的言論，政府都不能加以打壓，除非他的行動是恫嚇某人或煽動暴力，但瓊斯「以象徵式方法焚燒一些東西，你不能說成他要煽動暴力」。但憲法第一修正案保護言論自由並不適用在地方法例，由於瓊斯未取得佛州當局點火批准，所以一旦他點火燒《可蘭經》，警方可即時拘捕他。

牧師瓊斯可否燒《可蘭經》引起的言論自由爭議，儼如 2005年丹麥漫畫家繪畫回教先知穆罕默德「炸彈頭」漫畫爭議的翻版。當年歐洲報章群起刊登這些漫畫以示言論自由，但回教規定不能畫先知肖像，指摘漫畫褻瀆回教先知，結果激起全球回教徒激烈示威，漫畫家更收到死亡威嚇。

美聯社/美國哥倫比亞廣播公司

原定 911九周年下手國防部長致電斡旋

美牧師取消燒可蘭經

2010年 09月 11日

今天是美國 911恐怖襲擊九周年，卻因佛州牧師瓊斯（ Terry Jones）威脅今天燒《可蘭經》而隨時演變成一場宗教戰爭。瓊斯前天（周四）跟當地回教教士穆斯里（ Muhammad Musri）會晤後，因對方同意取消在紐約世貿中心遺址附近建清真寺的計劃，宣佈取消行動，但其後指穆斯里騙他，要重新考慮。不過他昨天證實無意燒經，因他相信該清真寺終會遷址。

牧師宣佈 911不燒可蘭經

瓊斯昨天接受美國廣播公司（ ABC）訪問時說：「現在我們無意燒經，相信回教教士會信守昨天對我們的諾言。他（穆斯里）向我們提議搬走在世貿遺址的清真寺。回教徒不想我們燒《可蘭經》，美國人不想在世貿遺址附近興建清真寺。我們作出建議，假如他們願搬走該清真寺，我們願取消燒經行動，他是聽到的。他才會帶該建議來見我。」

不過，穆斯里澄清是瓊斯曲解了他的說話。他向瓊斯說「個人認為」清真寺不應建於世貿遺址附近，他會「盡全力促成搬清真寺」，但只是安排了瓊斯今天到紐約會晤回教教士拉烏夫商討這問題，拉烏夫並沒有保證會搬清真寺。瓊斯昨午到紐約，今日親自跟拉烏夫會面，商討清真寺遷址問題。

以搬清真寺作交換

拉烏夫也發聲明，表示沒跟瓊斯或穆斯里進行過對話，強調「我們不會拿宗教來玩，也不會進行任何交換」。

穆斯里相信，瓊斯在兩人會晤時肯取消燒經計劃，皆因當時接了國防部長羅拔．蓋茨（ Robert Gates）的來電，才令他改變初衷。瓊斯昨天證實有這個電話，說跟羅拔．蓋茨的通話「非常短」，對方謙遜有禮，力陳燒經會危害駐阿富汗和伊拉克美軍性命，他才會認真考慮取消行動。

事實上，瓊斯發起 911火燒《可蘭經》活動後，美軍將領、國務院、全國多

2010年 9月 12日星期日

激進牧師突轉軚「永不燒《可蘭經》」

【明報專訊】發起焚燒《可蘭經》的牧師瓊斯（Terry Jones）宣布，該教會已取消焚經計劃。

他稱，就算世貿遺址附近興建伊斯蘭中心，他也「永不燒《可蘭經》」。他聲稱，焚經計劃

是為了「暴露伊斯蘭有着非常危險及極端的元素」，而現在目的已達到。

女兒﹕父親常自比摩西

瓊斯昨日前赴紐約，表示希望與興建伊斯蘭中心的教長拉烏夫（Feisal Abdul Rauf）會面，游

說對方覓址另建伊斯蘭中心，但他承認雙方沒有會面計劃，只是他單方面希望大家能見面。

瓊斯身在德國的女兒接受德國《明鏡》訪問時，直言「父親瘋了，需要幫助」。她透露，父

親經常自比摩西，要求絕對服從。

而瓊斯教會所在的蓋恩斯維爾市則有居民不滿他的行徑，身穿印有抗議字眼的 T恤，表明不

滿他令社區蒙羞，要與他劃清界線。

其他極端教會模仿焚經計劃

不過，瓊斯的行為似乎已引起國內其他極端教會模仿。田納西州一名牧師奧爾德（Bob Old）

表示，會在九一一當日燒《可蘭經》，因為他相信伊斯蘭教徒「信錯神」，焚經可以「救贖

他們的靈魂」，同時是要教導美國人憲法賦予的權利和令他們成為更好的基督徒。另外，懷

俄明州一個保守派組織亦計劃在州議會門外的階梯焚燒《可蘭經》，以抗議世貿遺址附近起

清真寺。

Sample of Issue-Inquiry Design: 1

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。


1998 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。


1998 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)

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

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-Content Analysis

Hong Kong Today and Modern China Dilemma in the idea of One Country Two System

Individual’s freedom of speech vs. Supremacy of national and SAR Flags

HKSAR law protecting human rights vs. National dignity and pride

Globalization Idea of post-traditional society: Tradition under interrogation Multicultural and politics of recognition

Sample of Issue-Inquiry Design: 2

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


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.

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.)

Lecture 7Understanding the Curriculum Form of Liberal Studies:

Conception of Issue Inquiry Approach

End

edd 5229 liberal studies in knowledge society lecture 8 -9 understanding the

Documents

public issue

noun issue

nature of issue inquiry

public matter

wright mills distinction

personal trouble

issueby trouble

public character