‘Narcissistic Sovereignty’ Has Kept U.S. from Ratifying U.N. Treaty on Children’s Rig

[Revmitchell]

Advocates for a United Nations treaty on children’s rights blamed American arrogance for it not being ratified by the United States, but critics charge signing onto the Convention on the Rights of the Child could mean international law trumping U.S. state and federal laws and the rights of parents to make decisions about raising and educating their children.



More Here

 

[KenH]

critics charge signing onto the Convention on the Rights of the Child could mean international law trumping U.S. state and federal laws and the rights of parents to make decisions about raising and educating their children.

Has this happened in the 193 countries that have ratified this treaty? I am not asking about isolated incidents but systematic effects that the critics claim will happen.

 

[JustChristian]

Bush appointed as our delegate to the UN a gentleman whose objective was to shut ir down. That sums up the current administration's attitude towards the UN.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yeah, there are some things to like about him, after all, eh ?

 

[targus]

So how are things working out for children in the countries that ratified the agreement?

No more forced child labor?

No more marriages of children to old men?

No more selling of children as sex slaves?

What difference does it make if the U.S. signs on or not if the agreement makes no difference in those signatory countries where these horrors are being forced onto children?

Does the rest of the world need our signature before they stop mistreating their own children?

Hint, this really isn't about the children at all - there obviously is another agenda on the part of the UN.

 

[just-want-peace]

Hint, this really isn't about the children at all - there obviously is another agenda on the part of the UN.

Good luck with getting this point across!!!:BangHead:

 

[Revmitchell]

Well look for it soon:

When asked about the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the campaign trail, President-elect Barack Obama expressed a willingness to consider sending the treaty to Congress for ratification.

“It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,” Obama said. “I will review this.”

 

[Bible-boy]

Well look for it soon:

When asked about the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the campaign trail, President-elect Barack Obama expressed a willingness to consider sending the treaty to Congress for ratification.

“It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,” Obama said. “I will review this.”

It is funny how he went to Somalia and dressed up in their native garb when it suited his political purpose and now he condemns and uses them as a negative example to push his Socialist agenda on us.

 

[Bible-boy]

Bush appointed as our delegate to the UN a gentleman whose objective was to shut ir down. That sums up the current administration's attitude towards the UN.

Neither the OP nor the linked article mentioned the Bush Administration or any UN delegate appointed by the Bush Administration. You are once again off topic and appear to be simply trying to derail the discussion here. Fellow Mods of this forum please address this recurring issue.

 

[JustChristian]

Neither the OP nor the linked article mentioned the Bush Administration or any UN delegate appointed by the Bush Administration. You are once again off topic and appear to be simply trying to derail the discussion here. Fellow Mods of this forum please address this recurring issue.

The article is from a radical right "News" organization which consistently degrades the UN. I'm simply saying that this attitude was widely accepted in the Bush administration.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

And by libertarians. When it comes to human rights abuses, the U.N. peace keepers make our troops look like the good Samaritans they really are.

 

[annsni]

From Home School Legal Defense:

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000021.asp

After years of debate within the international community, child’s rights activists reached an agreement in 1988 which created a comprehensive charter advancing the agenda of the children’s “liberation” movement. What the child’s rights advocates have for over two decades been unable to accomplish through the normal legislative process, may now be realized in one sweeping blow.

If ratified by the U.S. Senate, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child would undermine families by granting to children a list of radical “rights” which would be primarily enforced against the parents. These new “fundamental” rights would include “the right to privacy,” “the right to freedom of thought and association,” and the right to “freedom of expression.” Such presumptions subvert the authority of parents to exercise important responsibilities toward their children. Under the UN Convention, parental responsibility exists only in so far as parents are willing to further the independent choices of the child.

The Convention Would Become Supreme Law of the Land

Under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause of Article VI Section.2, “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

In Missouri v. Holland, (252 U.S. 416), the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Supremacy Clause a treaty made by the President, with concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate present at the time of voting, would become the supreme law and take precedent over contrary state laws. Thus, the U.N. Convention would constitute legally binding law in all 50 states. Otherwise valid state laws pertaining to education, the family, etc., which conflict with the provisions of the treaty will be subject to invalidation.

Were this convention to be ratified, the United States would be required to alter large portions of long established law to cater to the demands of the United Nations.

The Convention Would Give Children the “Right” to Disregard Parental Authority

Although several of the treaty’s provisions offer generally positive, nonoffensive platitudes, a substantial portion of this charter undermines parental rights. Some of the more relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are summarized below.

Severe Limitations Placed on the Parents’ Right to Train Their Children

Under Article 13, any attempts to prevent their children from interacting with material parents deem unacceptable is forbidden. Children are vested with a “ freedom of expression” right, which is virtually absolute. No allowance is made for parental guidance. Section 1 declares a child’s right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.”

In Article 14, children are guaranteed “ freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” Children have a legal right to object to all religious training. Alternatively, children may assert their right against parental objection to participate in the occult.

Article 15 declares “the right of the child to freedom of association.” Parents could be prevented from forbidding their child to associate with people deemed to be objectionable companions. Under Article 15, children could claim a “fundamental” right to join gangs, cults, and racist organizations over parental objection.

The Convention Would Entrench the Right of Teenagers to Abort Their Babies

Under Article 16, the “right to privacy” is granted to children. This UN sanctioned “privacy” would seemingly establish as the child’s right to obtain an abortion without parental notice, the right to purchase and use contraceptives, and the right to pornography in the home.

New Bureaucracies Would Be Created to Monitor Families

Article 19 mandates the creation of an intensive bureaucracy for the purpose of “identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment, and follow-up” of parents who, in violation of the child’s rights, treat their children negligently.

To insure State and U.N. control over their development, Article 7 requires all children must be immediately registered at birth.

A Prohibition On Corporal Punishment

Articles 3, 19, 37 require all ratifying countries to protect children from “degrading punishment” and “physical violence” which includes corporal punishment. The U.N. Committee of Ten (pursuant to Article 44) must oversee the implementation of the treaty. Over the last several years, the Committee published reports criticizing several countries (including Canada and Great Britain) for allowing corporal punishment to continue.

Mandatory Outcome Based Education

The American Bar Association’s 1990 publication Children’s Rights in America: U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child Compared to U.S. Law states that Article 29 will force public and private schools in America to adopt “federally prescribed curriculum content.” Each child must be prepared to be a responsible citizen by having “the spirit of understanding, peace, toleration, equity of sexes, and friendship [for] all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups of indigenous origin.” All children must be taught the principles of the treaty. This is OBE mandated curriculum of the worst sort.

Can the United States Amend the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child?

According to Articles 50 and 51, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child can only be amended through a four step process. First, at least one-third of the nations must favor a conference even to discuss an amendment. Once a conference is convened, a majority of the nations present at the conference must vote to adopt the amendment. Then it must be submitted to the full General Assembly for approval. If the amendment is approved by the General Assembly, it must be then be accepted by two-thirds of the participating nations. The great difficulty in amending this Treaty is unthinkable. Furthermore, “A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.”

Will This Treaty be Enforced in the United States?

Our own Constitution requires us to enforce all treaties as the “supreme law” of the land. Also, Article 4 of the Treaty, makes it clear that the signatory nations are bound to “undertake legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights” specified in the Convention.

Toward this ends, the Convention sets up a committee to review the progress of signatory nations called the Committee on the Rights of the Child (also called the Committee of Ten). Examples of the Committee’s oversight of the various nations which have ratified the Convention, are seen in recent reports called, “Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child.”

In a 1995 report the Committee heavily criticized Britain for not implementing many aspects of the treaty stating

The Committee is deeply worried … regarding judicial interpretations … permitting the reasonable chastisement in case of physical abuse of children within the family context. Thus the Committee is concerned that legislative and other measures relating to the physical integrity of children do not appear compatible with the provisions and principles of the Convention … The Committee is equally concerned that privately funded and managed schools are still permitted to administer corporal punishment to children.


Essentially the Committee is pointing out that spanking, which is still allowed in Britain, is a violation of the treaty.

Regarding Britain’s allowing parents to exclude their children from school (which includes home schooling), the Committee expressed concern that “the right of the child to express his or her opinion is not solicited.”

In 1997, when one of the delgates from Australia argued that the Convention did not specifically forbid spanking, the Committee disagreed stating

[T]he Convention should be interpreted holistically taking into consideration not only its specific provisions, but also the general principals which inspired it.


In other words, the Convention means what the Committee of Ten says it means.

The 1998 report on Japan equally disturbing,

[T]he convention on the Rights of the Child has precedence over domestic legislation and can be invoked before the domestic courts ...


France was evaluated in the 2004 Final Observations of the Committee and, along with a variety of issues, the Committee addressed the area of corporal punishment. They recommend that the State party “expressly prohibit corporal punishment by law in the family, in schools, in institutions and in other childcare settings.” They also recommend “awareness-raising and promotion of positive, non-violent forms of discipline, especially in families.”

These reports further confirm the United Nations belief that all nations who sign the Children’s Convention are obligated to apply its mandates which override the country’s own domestic law. This is a direct usurpation of national sovereignty.

Prepared by the legal staff of the National Center for Home Education. Reprint permission granted, P.O. Box 3000, Purcellville, VA 20134, (540) 330-7600

 

[JustChristian]

The Home School Legal Defense Committee is simply fear mongering when it states that "The Convention Would Become Supreme Law of the Land." The provisions iof the convention still need to be incorporated into national law. Many countries that signed this pact did so with declarations and reservations. Here are some examples:

United Kingdom
The United Kingdom ratified the Convention on 16 December 1991, with several declarations and reservations,[19] and made its first report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in January 1995. Concerns raised by the Committee included the growth in child poverty and inequality, the extent of violence towards children, the use of custody for young offenders, the low age of criminal responsibility, and the lack of opportunities for children and young people to express views.[20] The 2002 report of the Committee expressed similar concerns, including the welfare of children in custody, unequal treatment of asylum seekers, and the negative impact of poverty on children's rights. There was much attention in the media to the criticism of UK parent's rights to hit their children as 'a serious violation of the dignity of the child'.[21]. In September 2008 the UK government decided to give up its reservations and agree to the Convention in full.[22][23]

Canada
Canada has ratified the Convention but has not fully implemented the Convention in Canadian domestic laws. A nonprofit organization called the Canadian Children's Rights Council promotes awareness of the CRC in Canadian media, and provides resources on their website pertaining to the Convention.[9] Youth criminal laws in Canada underwent major changes resulting in the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) which went into effect on 1 April 2003. [10] In 1989, the Canadian House of Commons voted unanimously to pass a non-binding resolution to end child poverty by the year 2000. However, the child poverty rate did not change between 1989 and 2000; 16% of Canadian children still live in poverty. [11]

India
In India, there is no outright ban on child labor, and the practice is generally permitted in most industries except those deemed “hazardous”. Although a law in October 2006 banned child labor in hotels, restaurants, and as domestic servants, there continues to be high demand for children as hired help in the home. Current estimates as to the number of child laborers in the country range from the government’s conservative estimate of 12 million children under 14 years of age to the much higher estimates of children’s rights activists, which hover around 60 million. Little is being done to address the problem since the economy is booming and the nuclear family is spreading, thereby increasing demand for child laborers.[12]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, it's clear that monolithic acceptance of the convention is NOT necessary contrary to what the Home School Legal Defense Committee claims. The United States has joined Somalia, a country with little regard for human life or rights, in being the only country in the U.N. not to ratify this convention. We need to join the rest of the world in supporting the basic rights of children.

 

[targus]

We need to join the rest of the world in supporting the basic rights of children.

So if nothing has changed in the countries that signed on how are children's rights being protected?

I find it interesting that you chose Canada and Great Britan as examples.

What's happening with childrens' rights in countries like China or the Middle East or Africa?

Has the agreement stopped the child sex trades in Thiland?

 

[JustChristian]

So if nothing has changed in the countries that signed on how are children's rights being protected?

I find it interesting that you chose Canada and Great Britan as examples.

What's happening with childrens' rights in countries like China or the Middle East or Africa?

Has the agreement stopped the child sex trades in Thiland?

What about India? Actually, I would claim that Canada and the UK are the two countries in the world that are closest to the U.S. in their government style and politics. What country would make for a better comparison? France? Iran? Iraq?

 

[rbell]

What's happening with childrens' rights in countries like China or the Middle East or Africa?

Has the agreement stopped the child sex trades in Thiland?

The UN isn't interested in ruining those countries. Only the US, Israel, Great Britain, and a handful of others.

Keep in mind who has served the last few years on the UN council on Human Rights:

• Angola
• Pakistan
• Saudi Arabia
• China

(not serving: the US, and Israel)
Need I say more?

 

[targus]

What about India? Actually, I would claim that Canada and the UK are the two countries in the world that are closest to the U.S. in their government style and politics. What country would make for a better comparison? France? Iran? Iraq?

Well, I've asked the same question a couple of times now and am beginning to wonder why I don't get an answer.

This agreement is supposed to protect children.

So how have children been fairing in the more egregious countries that have signed on already. You know, the countries where children are sold into slavery or are forced to marry old men. Those sort of abuses.

Has there been any improvement for those children?

If not, then what good does it do to sign on?

What specifically does this agreement call for us to do that we are not already doing? We have child labor laws. We don't have children being sold into slavery. We have a minimum age for marriage.

So what exactly is the point of this agreement or this thread?

 

[Bible-boy]

So, it's clear that monolithic acceptance of the convention is NOT necessary contrary to what the Home School Legal Defense Committee claims. The United States has joined Somalia, a country with little regard for human life or rights, in being the only country in the U.N. not to ratify this convention. We need to join the rest of the world in supporting the basic rights of children.

First, you'd have to prove that the US does not support the basic rights of children. Since children (except the unborn) are covered by the same US laws that support and protect all of our basic rights I'd say you'd have a devil of a time making that case. There is a larger Socialist agenda driving this UN clap trap and it has nothing to do with the rights of children in the US.

 

[JustChristian]

First, you'd have to prove that the US does not support the basic rights of children. Since children (except the unborn) are covered by the same US laws that support and protect all of our basic rights I'd say you'd have a devil of a time making that case. There is a larger Socialist agenda driving this UN clap trap and it has nothing to do with the rights of children in the US.

So you'd rather always go to war rather than have a place (the U.N.) to discuss differences? The other point is why should the U.S. make a (negative) point by joining Somalia as the only countries in the U.N. not to agree that children have certain minimum rights?