We recently went to our public library for a summer event they were holding. We found this book on a display shelf while we were there:
"I Have the Right to Be a Child" is written by Alain Serres and illustrated by Aurelia Fronty. My interest was piqued. The book is based on a little thing from the UN called the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This convention founded UNICEF. They set out a certain amount of 'rights' or basic standards that every child in the world is entitled to. Every country in the United Nations has ratified this treaty, except for three. The United States is the only Western country not to have done so.
First, let me say that the majority of these rights are very good; in a large portion of our world they're needed. It sets out things like a child's right not to be in the military until they're 18, to not be forced into slavery or child prostitution. These are excellent things that I would happily support. However, there are 2 things about the treaty that are frightening.
The first is the requirement of the country to give up its sovereignty. From the UNICEF website:
"The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights—civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights."
And
"By agreeing to undertake the obligations of the Convention (by ratifying or acceding to it), national
governments have committed themselves to protecting and ensuring children's rights and they have agreed to hold themselves accountable for this commitment before the international community."
From the Parental Rights website:
"A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee."
The second thing I find frightening, though, is some of the actual rights and how they can be interpreted. Or rather, how they have been interpreted in other countries already. By enforcing the right of the child, the parent's right is undermined. Again from the UNICEF website: "...we cannot ensure some rights without—or at the expense of—other rights." For example, this treaty has been used in other countries to outlaw spanking. There's also a principle in the treaty about 'the best interest of the child.' Using this principle, if a government worker thought how you were raising your child was not in the child's best interest, the government worker could override any decision made by you, the parent. There are many other things, as well, that have come about from this treaty.
For example, the right to think for themselves. Obviously, this is not a bad thing. We want to teach our children to think for themselves and not be sheep. However, when this right is ensured at the expense of the parent's right to teach and mold their child - it can have very bad consequences. I'm going to post a video at the end called "Overruled." In it they talk about a few legal cases where the child has sued the parents for violating their rights. One example is of a teenage boy who felt oppressed because his parents made him go to church.
The right not to be poor or to be too hot. Very idealistic but obviously not enforceable. And that last line, 'Not more' is a little suspicious to me...
The right to refuse to go to work. Again, I know child labor is a problem in many countries but taken one step too far it can prevent parents from teaching their children how to work hard and have a good work ethic. Children would have a legally enforceable right to leisure.
You might have to click on this picture to be able to read it, but it is basically a guilt trip for the United States not having ratified the treaty. On the bottom right it says, "If I live in one of the very few countries that haven't agreed to the Convention, like the United States, I have the right to demand that country to join! Should I not have the same rights as every other child in the world?" Needless to say, by the time Christian and I got to this part of the book, we were extremely distressed. Where did this book come from? So we looked at the back page to the notes on the author and illustrator. Then we rolled our eyes. They were French.
I know that my post might seem a bit like scare mongering. I really don't like using fear and 'what-ifs' as motivators, but these aren't 'what-ifs.' They have happened in other countries and have happened, to a certain degree, in this country (mostly in those states that have tried to introduce their own legislation similar to the treaty).
The Convention on the Right of the Child shifts the authority and responsibility of the child from the parent to the government. This has already happened in America concerning education - in most people's eyes it is the government's job to educate our children, not the parents.
The United States hasn't ratified this treaty, mostly because we are very protective of our sovereignty. It would need a two-thirds vote in the Senate to pass it, and I don't think it will come close any time soon. However, the theory behind it - that the government is responsible for the well-being of the child - is still a threat to parental rights from those who believe that the CRC should be implemented within the US, either at a federal or state level.
I'm posting several different links so you can decide for yourself.
The UNICEF website:
http://www.unicef.org/crc/ - Their statement on the CRC
UNICEF - Implications of the CRC- The implications of the CRC
UNICEF- Monitoring of the CRC - How UNICEF will monitor those countries
Parental Rights website, an organization trying to pass an amendment ensuring the rights of the parent:
'Overruled,' a 30-minute video on some of the implications of this treaty:
(While I like this video, it uses fear as a motivator. I think the facts about the CRC are enough of a motivator without the fear.)
No comments:
Post a Comment