The text of the treaty itself covers a lot of freedoms such as freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, and expression, as well as more concrete things like the rights to health care and an education. Unfortunately, objections like those at ParentalRights.org have prevented this treaty from ratification in United States (the only other nation to similarly refuse is Somalia). What could a “pro-family” parental rights group possibly have against this? Fancy that, they made a list of their objections [in their wording]:
Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
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.
Christian schools that refuse to teach “alternative worldviews” and teach that Christianity is the only true religion “fly in the face of article 29″ of the treaty.
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.
Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
Apparently the UN convention on the Rights of the Child aims to state basic rights that children are allowed by virtue of their own individual existence. However, it shall not be ratified in the United States if so called "pro-family" organizations have anything to say. They want to make sure that children are seen as property of the parents, subject to all the backwards thinking that comes with that responsibility. From the Harvard Humanist Community Project:
Although I consider myself a conservative on many issues, I seem at odds with many "conservative" ideas. Just to pick one of the issues above, I don't understand the "abstinence" only view on sex ed. They say they want to leave it up to the parents, but the parents that don't want it taught in school are the same types of parents that won't teach it at home. On that same note though, I wouldn't want my daughter having access to an abortion without my knowledge. That may seem wrong to some people, but as her mother, I doubt any other human being besides her dad would love her like I do and I'd want to be there when she was considering a decision like this.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post...
The PRA campaign is based on deliberate misrepresentation of the UNCRC. For example, it's claimed the state would supplant parents in making decisions, but the CRC makes it clear parents have the main responsibility for upbringing, and the state's role is to support that. It also makes clear children have a right to access information, to be protected from abuse etc.
ReplyDeleteIt says too they have a right to be consulted about issues which affect them and based on their ability to understand (which varies with children and by age and ability).
The PRA claims it would override the US Constitution - so why then does the US sign any treaties? The truth is, and that's based on sound academic analysis, this claim is bunk.
Children have a right to play, rest and recreation, it states. Legally enforceable? Well, only balanced with right to education etc. So no way a child could say, as one PRA goon claimed, a kid could refuse to go to school because he wanted to play.
So, if a kid was denied play altogether ("tiger mums"?) would there be a case to act so the kid did have some play? Who would object? The mum. The kid? His friends? His neighbours? "Oh" says the tiger mum, "it's my right to decide this for my child?" When does a parental right become abuse? Power corrupts, absolute power .... (Try seeing child abuse as a form of corrupt power ....)
Oh, Somalia has not signed or ratified the CRC, but not for the same reasons as the US. Their reason? They are a basket case. They have said they will sign when they stop being one...
Clinton signed the CRC as with any other treaty, but Congress has to ratify it.
The PR amendment would remove children from the rights they have in the Constitution at present, it would in effect make the child's constitutional rights contingent upon parent approval. = No rights at all.
The people behind the PRA (the neo-con Christian Right Home School Defence lot) always hide their true motive, which is they object to the CRC right which says children have a right to choose their religion. The CRC says parents are there to guide in such matters, but not to impose.
Whoaa! Doesn't the US Constitution say much the same about freedom of religion?
The CRC is the world's most signed treaty. Why do the PRA think other parents in other countries haven't en masse rejected the CRC and blocked it? They are stupid? And each country delivers its obligations according to its laws and systems. What 'power' does the UN have on this treaty? Oh each country AGREES (not 'is forced') to submit a report every 5 years on its progress in implementing the CRC. This goes to a UN committee which also can hear from eg non-profits, churches, rights groups, etc. The committee then issues a report with .... ORDERS? No THREATS? No INSTRUCTIONS? No. Well, what? Ah .... Recommendations. What happens? The country either follows them or it doesn't, or some of each. So, no UN troops massed to invade the USofA ....