A/CONF.189/PC.2/22 page 25 overlap.89 We have opted for an approach that seems to us both the most directly relevant to the subject of this study, namely, one based on the concepts of discrimination and intolerance in education, and the most functional in terms of violations or ignorance of legal obligations. We shall start by looking at discrimination resulting from positive and often deliberate materially identifiable acts of States; such discrimination would arise from regulations, policies, instructions, measures and other material conditions affecting the organization or content of education put in place by States (sect. A). We shall then turn to discrimination or segregation resulting from a negative attitude on the part of States, where the discrimination arises from a State’s omission or failure to take action (sect. B).90 A. Discrimination by action 81. An examination of certain aspects of practice in this regard reveals at least three scenarios for attitudes that may be classified as discrimination by action: impermeability, domination and marginalization. 1. Impermeability 82. Impermeability here means an intended or unintended situation in which it is impossible for all or even part of an education system to take account, at the conceptual and organizational levels, of the specific expectations of certain ethnic and/or religious minority groups. Thus, in countries with many indigenous populations, the official education systems might be either unable or unwilling to incorporate the values and components of those populations’ cultural identity.91 In such cases, discrimination arises when the education system established or supervised by the State does not meet to those groups’ expectations with regard to equal rights and identity. 83. Several examples may be cited in this connection. Discrimination arises, for instance, when the education system organizes teaching whose form and content conflicts with the religious beliefs of pupils belonging to minority ethnic groups.92 Again with regard to the content of the teaching provided, some examples concern families which consider that their children should not study certain subjects, arguing that, although they have no specifically religious content, they may conflict with their beliefs and convictions. Examples are sex education and instruction in sports or music, which some parents challenge on the grounds that these subjects are incompatible with specific religious beliefs.93 However, education should also contribute to shaping the pupils’ sensibility and taste, and to protecting them against societal ills such as teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. A refusal to take account of that dimension in the teaching dispensed in private schools or in textbooks, for religious or moral reasons, conflicts not only with human rights and tolerance, but also with the “best interests of the child”.94 84. Examples relating to the organization of teaching are also worthy of note. First, there is the thorny question of weekly restdays, which poses a particularly acute problem in multi-denominational classes. Do pupils not belonging to the majority religious group have the right to a holiday on the day celebrated as a holiday by their religion? Admittedly, the organization of differentiated restdays poses serious problems, particularly when there is a great religious diversity in one and the same school.95 The same problem could arise with the