Why don't people believe it can happen here?

The New American reported on the new education law that effectively banned homeschooling in Sweden and made any kind of alternative to government schooling illegal.

OK, so the picture is German, but the principle is the same.

FTA: "The Kingdom of Sweden took a dramatic turn toward totalitarianism with the adoption of a sweeping new education “reform” package that essentially prohibits home schooling and forces all schools to teach the same government curriculum. The draconian 1,500-page law — deceptively referred to by the Swedish government as “The new Education Act - for knowledge, choice and security” — was approved by Parliament last week amidst strong criticism and opposition. When it goes into effect next year, the entire educational system will be transformed, and alternative education abolished."

Particularly in countries where the UNCRC has been adopted, this is definitely the wave of the future.

There seems to be a particular antipathy toward religious instruction, as explained by Education Ministry press secretary Anna Neuman. “[Religious schools] can’t make any children to pray or confess to the God, but they will still be allowed [to exist].”  So what she is saying is that there will be no more difference between "religious" school and a government school.

Swedish homeschoolers are considering leaving the county.

Let's Talk About the UNCRC

About a year ago, I wrote in this space (again) about the hazards posed to homeschooling by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  I referred my readers to an excellent article, and received a number of interesting, thoughtful comments.

Now that the Obama administration has conquered healthcare, it has turned its attention to immigration for the time being. But we have been hearing rumblings that a player soon coming up to bat will be our old nemesis, the UNCRC.

One of the comments to my old article was by "Anonymous", who, in a nutshell, felt I was overreacting - but it not that comment that I want to highlight, but my typically long-winded reply to him/her.  It is every bit as relevant today as it was, if not more so.

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 New 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. 

I have written at some length on the UNCRC, and you can find additional posts here.  I'm sure there are many opinions about this, from homeschoolers and non-homeschoolers, from Christians and non-Christians, from Americans and from others who live in countries who are already signatories on this treaty.  If you will express yourself in a respectful way, your opinion is welcome here!  No flamethrowing, please. If you are fighting mad right now, please calm down before you write. Also, I do not want debate about what I believe (or what you don't believe) about Jesus Christ, but about whether you think the government knows more than you do about how to raise your children. I really do want to be able to publish every comment, so watch your language!

What, if any, has been your experience with this treaty?

Why we need a Parental Rights Amendment

From ParentalRights.org

Your freedom to raise your children
with your own faith and worldview is under attack
from outside our country, and from within.

♦ A New Hampshire mom has been forbidden to
home school because her daughter holds “too
firmly” to her religious beliefs.

♦ Several Boston-area school districts have rules on
what food parents can or cannot include in their
child’s lunch.

♦ National governments around the world are being
pressured to outlaw modest spanking as discipline
in the home, regardless of what voters would
choose.

♦ The United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of
the Child contains threats to parental rights and national
sovereignty. One expert writes, “[The] best
interests [principle] provides decision and policy
makers with the authority to substitute their own
decisions for either the child’s or the parents’.”

This is not just in divorce courts. This is for any decision.

Call your legislators and tell them you support a parental rights amendment and oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is time to stop pretending this stuff is no big deal. Our freedom to decide how to raise our children is at stake. Ignorance is no excuse.

Thoughts From A Conservative Mom: Sweden outlaws home schooling

Here is a sobering article following up on yesterday's post.

Thoughts From A Conservative Mom: Sweden outlaws home schooling

So much for those who are thinking that the UNCRC is not going to be a problem for the US.

Just because you are not homeschooling does not mean that teams of government bureaucrats will not be able to override your every decision if they deem it not in "the best interests of the child."

Do you REALLY want someone else telling you what is best for your children?

Parents, oppose ratification of this treaty with every breath, or risk losing the right to direct the upbringing of your children.

Including their education.

Including their spiritual development, or lack thereof.

A lot of parents don't care about that because they think that will only affect those crazy Christians who hate the "godless" schools and want to establish a Theocracy on earth. "Good riddance," they are thinking. "We could do with less religion in the world."

Atheist parent, do you want the government to tell you that you are required to take your child to church if he wants to go?

Muslim parent, do you want the government to tell you that you must allow your child to convert to Judaism if that is what she desires?

That's what I thought.

This affects everyone.

No More Parental rights? The Threat is Real

Even as I am writing this, activists are gathering in Washington DC to rally in support of the ratification UNCRC (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child). It has been suggested that there will be an attempt by supporters in Congress to pass "ambush legislation" - that is, to rush through the ratification of this international treaty without getting the support of the American People.

The last few days and weeks should tell you that Congress does not give a damn about the support or desires of the American People.

• Ordinary Americans who do not support Obamacare have been vilified and mocked in the press and by legislators themselves as some sort of insurance industry shills and (God forbid) right-wing crackpots.
  
• Yesterday the White House directed the Justice Department to file court papers claiming the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against homosexuals, even though the Justice Department lawyers have been arguing that it is constitutional, and an infringement on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.

Parentalrights.org observes:

Under the UNCRC, instead of following due process, government agencies would have the power to override your parental choices at their whim because they determine what is in "the best interest of the child."

In essence, the UNCRC applies the legal status of abusive parents to all parents. This means that the burden of proof falls on the parent to prove to the State that they are good parents—when it should fall upon the State to prove that their investigation is not without cause.

It should insult you that this treaty will consider you an abusive parent unless you are able to prove otherwise. This sets a dangerous precedent that undermines our legal status as "innocent until proven guilty."

For those who cannot believe that parental rights are endangered by this treaty, but here are a couple of examples of cases where judges decided against parents without the treaty. We are not talking about parents who are abusive and dangerous themselves. There are already laws on the books dealing with those. We are talking about judicial activism and a culture that increasingly devalues parents and seeks to place control of our children, if not with the state, anywhere but with us.

From www.parentalrights.org

A West Virginia mother was shocked when a local circuit judge and a family court judge ordered her to share custody of her four-year-old daughter with two of the girl’s babysitters. Referring to the sitters as "psychological co-parents," the justices first awarded full custody to them, only permitting the mother to visit her daughter four times a week at McDonalds. Eventually she was granted primary custody, but forced to continue to share her daughter with the sitters.

When her case finally reached the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in October 2007, the beleaguered mother was relieved to finally be granted full custody of her daughter.

In their October 25 opinion Supreme Court justices wrote that they were "deeply troubled by the utter disregard" for the mother's rights. One justice referred to the mother’s right as the “paramount right in the world."

Chief Justice Robin Davis summed up the case in one simple question."Why does a natural parent have to prove fitness when she has never been found unfit?" he asked. (In Re: Visitation and Custody of Senturi N.S.V., 221 W.Va. 159, 652 S.E. 2d 490 (2007))

Excuse me? With the girl's BABYSITTERS?? Does modern contempt for all things traditional or parental know no bounds? How about this one:

From www.parentalrights.org

The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter's participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter's life by grounding her.

But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent's actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was "conflict between parent and child." Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.

Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila's parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away. (In Re: Sumey, 94 Wn. 2d 757, 621 P. 2d 108 (1980))

Did you catch the date on that last one? That was almost 30 years ago! Do you really think that judges have become more traditional since then? The battle has escalated alarmingly in just the few months since Obama was elected.

I know these last few posts do not deal directly with home business, but they do deal directly with homeschooling. Home schooling is already being restricted in other countries, notably in the UK, precisely because of provisions of this treaty. But even if you are not a homeschooler, if you have children and believe that you know better how to raise them than the state does, you should be afraid.

Very afraid.

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.

Call Now to Stop UN Children’s Treaty

Monday in a Harlem middle school, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told a group of 120 students that administration officials are actively discussing “when and how it might be possible to join” (that is, ratify) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). As before, she also communicated what a disgrace it is that the U.S. would stand with only Somalia against such a widely accepted treaty.

This is the first direct public statement by the Obama administration that it will seek ratification of the UN CRC.

In my 30 years of political involvement, I have learned to recognize this as what is called a “trial balloon.” Like in World War I trench warfare, our opponents have “sent up a balloon” to see if it will draw fire. If things remain quiet, they will proceed with their plans to push for ratification of the CRC in the U.S. Senate. To discourage them from doing so, we need to make sure that our voices are heard with unmistakable clarity. We must let the Obama administration know that we oppose this anti-family, anti-American treaty.

Action

Here’s what we need you all to do:

1. Call the White House comments line at 202-456-1111. Tell them you heard the administration wants to ratify the CRC, and you strongly oppose this giving away of U.S. sovereignty to the UN. Also, keep in mind that 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.

2. Call the Ambassador Susan Rice’s office at the United Nations. Tell her that you want her to represent the United States to the world rather than trying to get the United States to go along with international law initiated by the UN. Her office number is 212-415-4000.

3. Contact your senators and urge them to oppose ratification of this treaty. (Find your senators’ contact information by using HSLDA’s Legislative Toolbox.) Ask them also to defeat it once and for all by cosponsoring SJRes 16—the Parental Rights Amendment.

It is very important that we speak up right now. Please call before you close this email!

Michael Farris
HSLDA Chairman