Thursday, June 25, 2009

Let's Look A Little Deeper at the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Here is an outstanding piece that goes into more detail about exactly what is wrong with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I will not elaborate but urge you to go now and check this out. You may be shocked to realize how any rights YOU have to direct the upbringing of your child will be affected. This is not only, as she says, about "Christians and nutty homeschoolers" who oppose this. If you are a parent, you should oppose this.

Contact your legislators immediately.


  1. I am going to check this out. My country is a signatory to the UNCRC and we have a lot of NGOs working for children's rights, myself an advocate though I haven't been working in this field for a long time now. This is the first time I'll be seeing somewhat of an opposition. Thank you for the link :)

  2. I am a home schooling parent and believe that most of your objections to these agreements are really objections to harmless legalese.
    Children's rights need to be protected in the wider world, where some countries still have child slave labour, for heaven's sake!
    In many places marriage is condoned before puberty!
    So let's not throw out the babies with the bathwater. What's your opinion on other UN treaties, like the declaration of human rights?

  3. I would agree that in countries where marriages pushed on prepubescent children and child slave labor are common that this treaty would be appropriate. But why does the US need to be a signatory on this treaty? This treaty gives the government jurisdiction to override any decision made by any parent if the government thinks that a better decision can be made—even if there is no proof of any harm to the child. You assume that those who would be implementing these provisions are benevolent and actually looking out "for the children", but it sounds like a power grab to me. Please take a look at the article I suggested for a more detailed look at what I don't like about this treaty.

  4. Your concerns are definitely not delusional.
    It's true that giving more power to powermongers is never a good idea and that legislation can be used in ways other than those intended. Taking responsibility for kids from parents and putting it in the hands of governments is also a very bad idea.
    But the world needs to agree on many different sets of standards if we're to progress into a peaceful new millennium, with global governance based on equality, not equity. Otherwise we'll have a global ash pit to bequeath to our children.
    World governance doesn't have to equate with one world government or totalitarianism. Many people claimed the UN declaration of human rights would result in the opposite of what was intended - but it didn't.
    The US will always retain the unique and wonderful protections afforded by the Bill of Rights and constitution - and hardly any other country (or its children) is as well protected.
    Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. What would you put in place instead of these ideals?
    What would you say to the millions of children (in the states as well as elsewhere) who desperately need protection from their abusive families?
    Many UN treaties have been viewed as draconian, but they're always reined in by the individual signatory nations. Most are completely ignored.

  5. If I could believe what you are saying is true, ("The US will always retain the unique and wonderful protections afforded by the Bill of Rights and constitution - and hardly any other country (or its children) is as well protected.") I would feel much better about this treaty.

    But I believe our freedoms and rights have already been compromised, and that those who are in a position to implement this treaty will use it for ill and not for good. It is already being used in Britain to restrict homeschooling.

    I want to respond to your other points, but I don't have the time right now to give your questions the thoughtful answers they deserve. Give me a chance to think about these things, and we will talk again.

  6. Thank you for your post, and the link to the longer article. I remember writing to our leader years ago about my concerns, and receiving a form letter congratulating me on my approval of the document!

  7. I must say we are in total agreement on this point - but hope (and possibly my hopeless naivete)springs eternal!
    I'd be happy if all authoritarian institutions were closed, but one of my kids goes to the most remarkable school, remotely located in a rural setting and comprised of teachers and parents who really have the childrens' interests at heart.
    Keeping it open is slowly driving us all broke, of course.
    Parent-run schools are a good alternative that ensures the kids get enough social interaction.

  8. Anonymous9:54 PM

    I have always given my son the opportunity to explore different cultures and beliefs/value sets, even from a young age. We have lived in 5 countries, on 4 continets, and visited another 37 countries along the way. Only by open and informed review of ideas can our children grow into educated adults. School - any school where the educator really cares about opening up the possibilities, encouraging thought, accepting differences, and creating a complete human is good, whatever form that school takes. It is my belief that the rights of children are important, no one who is open and honest with their children, no one who does not try to "inflict" their ideas and "beliefs" on their children needs worry about what the UN poroposes.

  9. I fully agree with you. The future of our children will be changed and the way of life as we know it will be gone. When we finally say enough is enough?
    Johnny Ray

  10. Anonymous, I am glad that you are being open and honest with your children. So am I. But I disagree with your comment "no one who is open and honest with their children, no one who does not try to 'inflict' their ideas and 'beliefs' on their children needs worry about what the UN proposes."

    This statement or some variant is usually used by people who are disdainful of Christian parents' insistence on teaching their children about Christ, and feel that they limit their children's experiences by promoting their Christian beliefs and teaching their children about others' beliefs through the grid of their Christian worldview. But if I don't believe in Jesus Christ enough to teach my children about Him, then why bother believing?

    If my child is in a burning building, I believe he is in grave danger and I am going to use whatever means I have to get him out of there. If I am beating down the door and he opens the door and tells me its ok, the fire is not going to burn him and (insert other belief system) says the fire is not even real, I am still going to try to rescue him from the fire regardless of his beliefs. This is especially true for a young person who has no idea that he is not indestructible. If I actually believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, and I believe that my child's soul is in grave danger, that is just as much an objective truth to me as when I see a building on fire. I am going to try to rescue him from that danger regardless of his beliefs.

    Let's forget about the religion question for a minute. Should parents of any persuasion be forced to allow their children unrestricted access to any kind of media, or to associate with any person they want to or have any kind of experience they think they want to try? When they are old enough to make these decisions for themselves, they are going to do what they want anyway. But when they are very young, should they have the "right" to watch porn, or go out alone to meet some pedophile they met in an online chat room? Should government be able to override any and every decision of the parent because some government hack decided that it was in the "best interest of the child" or have the child removed from the house even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing?

    Since you submitted this comment, the mother of a homeschooled girl in Hew Hampshire who was academically superior by most every standard, was forced to send her child to school because the judge thought the child was too firm in her belief in Christ. From his perspective this could only happen by indoctrination, like only someone who didn't know any better would believe in Christ.

    You may agree with this ruling, but this is a dangerous precedent. One day something you believe may be on trial.