Turning Parental Rights Over to Big Government

unitednations1

If you think they did a good job with the economy, wait until the government gets their hands on your children.

Hand in hand with the disintegration of the family is the idea that government should take on the role of parents to our nation’s children.  Redefined and abandoned, the family unit is up for grabs, and the United Nations wants government to have a piece of the action.

With one vote, this treaty could become sovereign law in this nation as the U.N. turns autonomous loving families into little more than government run, government managed daycare centers.

Don’t let it happen. See this article from WorldNetDaily.

—Beetle Blogger

United Nations’ threat: No more parental rights

A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families’ religion is on America’s doorstep, a legal expert warns.

Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child’s best interest.

“It’s definitely on our doorstep,” he said. “The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we’re stuck with it even if they lose the next election.”

The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there’s been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.

Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives’ efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.

The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that “the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” While the treaty states that parents or legal guardians “have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child,” Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents’ decisions are in their children’s best interest. The treaty is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.

According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:

  • Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
  • A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
  • Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
  • The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
  • A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
  • According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
  • Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
  • Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

“Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government,” Farris said. “The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children.”


The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children’s lives.

“If you think your child shouldn’t go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that’s what’s best for your child,” he said. “If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child.”

He continued, “If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance.”

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.

Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because “the political world has changed.”

At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.

“It’s embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,” Obama said. “I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty’s submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.

Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.

In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.

Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.

While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.

“I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime,” he said. “There’s not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it.”

Advertisements

6 Comments

  1. February 13, 2009 at 7:49 am

    This reminds me of communism where the state controls everyone. Having less laws is better not creating more laws.

  2. February 13, 2009 at 8:34 am

    Have you read the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Taking WND’s view of just about anything is a pretty good way to arrive at the wrong conclusion. I’m not say that they’re entirely wrong of course. I’m simply saying that the kernel of truth that they start with is generally supplemented with a thick coating of paranoia and wingnuttery.
    I’m slowly working my way through it… Convention on the Rights of the Child

  3. debbie said,

    February 13, 2009 at 10:14 pm

    I’m thinking that ANYTYHING that requires the kind of jargon like, in the above document, is WRONG!!. For 100’s of years mothers and fathers have been able to raise children WITHOUT GOV’T interference. Why all of a sudden has that idea changed. The same group that is pushing this through is the same group responsible for how we got to this state. To me, this just proves that liberals cannot get anything right.

  4. debbie said,

    February 13, 2009 at 10:26 pm

    http://www.thelocal.se/10794/20080330/

    Here is something interesting from Sweden. I have found other more telling articles about Sweden, but I cannot locate them. The problem was children telling on parents.

  5. February 14, 2009 at 12:33 am

    “With one vote, this treaty could become sovereign law in this nation as the U.N. turns autonomous loving families into little more than government run, government managed daycare centers.”
    Not so much. International treaties, pretty much by definition, do give up some sovereignty, but Articles 7, 12, 20 & 26 explicitly do not supersede “national law”.

    Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

    Article 19 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

    A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
    I can’t find any sections that explicitly state this (admittedly, I’ve only gone over it a couple of times). Is the problem that this interpretation rigidly defines cut-off ages or is it that children should get life in prison (or the death sentence)?

    Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

    Article 14 1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

    “Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, parents do have the right to provide direction to the child. Such parental power, however, is subject to two restraints: First, such direction should take into account the evolving capacities of the child, as expressly required by the Convention. Second, the direction should not be so unyielding that it equals coercion.” (Van Bueren quote from parentalright.org

    Don’t “children…have the ability to choose their own religion” now? Isn’t “parents…only have the authority to give their children advice about religion” just like now? You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

    The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.

    Article 9 1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.

    …which is pretty much the same as it is now.

    A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

    Article 12 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law. .

    “The interests of the child should be at the center of any decision-making. If the child is capable of articulating a perspective, the child should have client-directed counsel to get that voice before the court and the court should seriously consider it. Even if the child is unable to articulate a view, the child’s attorney can offer a child-focused assessment of the child’s needs. Because the child’s best interests may be different than one or both of the parent’s interests, the child should have a voice. Giving the child a voice, however, does not necessarily “conflict.” Listening to the child does not mean not listening to the parents or others involved in the dispute. The key is to add the child’s voice to the voice of others being presented.” (Pace Law Review quote fm parentalrights.org

    According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.

    Article 24 1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services. 2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures: (a) To diminish infant and child mortality; (b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care; (c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution; (d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers; (e) To ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents; (f) To develop preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services.

    Also, parentalrights.org critique starts at this quote from Van Bueren “[T]he United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, criticized Egypt and Indonesia on the proportion of their budget spent on defence, as compared to the proportion spent on children’s social expenditure.” and somehow gets to “We could reasonably anticipate that children’s rights activists would bring lawsuits in American federal courts in hopes of finding sympathetic judges who would hold that America spends too much on military defense and order a redistribution of funds toward children’s social programs.” Reasonable or tin-foil hat? Incidentally…

    “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. … Is there no other way the world may live?” ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

    Article 31 1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts. 2. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.

    “Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.”
    I don’t see anything like that, except for their rights to free expression, religion, guidance without coercion and the like.

    Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC. & Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
    I assume that’s supposed to be about Article 24.

    Article 24 2(f) To develop preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services.

    …which makes it an awfully big stretch.

  6. debbie said,

    February 16, 2009 at 7:15 pm

    Here is the article regarding Sweden, there is also another website I am trying to relocate. Just an interesting article:

    http://mises.org/story/1406


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: