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?

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.

Can the UN Stop you from Homeschooling?

This was originally posted here on June 24, 2006. The US has repeatedly refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but that may change under the Obama administration, resulting in a fearful erosion of parental rights, and affecting our right to educate our children at home.



Maybe.

This is as disturbing a development as I have encountered in my 17 years of homeschooling. Please read this carefully and realize that it can happen to us.


Brussels Journal Editor Threatened with Prosecution over Homeschooling
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1114

By Alexandra Colen
Created 2006-06-15 00:05

Yesterday my husband Paul Belien, the editor of this website, was summoned to the police station and interrogated. He was told that the Belgian authorities are of the opinion that, as a homeschooler, he has not adequately educated his children and, hence, is neglecting his duty as a parent, which is a criminal offence. The Ministry of Education has asked the judiciary to press charges and the judiciary told the police to investigate and take down his statement.

It appears that the Belgian authorities are again considering prosecution – the second time in barely two months. This time the claim is not that my husband posted allegedly “racist” texts on this website but that he is failing his children.

My husband, a lawyer by training, and I, a former university lecturer, have homeschooled four of our five children through high school. These four have meanwhile moved on to university. Our youngest child is also being homeschooled, but she has yet to obtain her high school certificate, for which she is currently taking exams. Like her four siblings she takes these exams before the Central Examination Board (CEB), an institution run by the Ministry of Education. The Belgian Constitution, written in 1831, allows parents to homeschool. The CEB exists to enable people who have not attended or who have failed school to obtain an official high school certificate.

Since we started homeschooling in the 1990s the homeschooling movement in Belgium has been growing. The number of homeschoolers is small, comprising only 202 children in primary school and 311 children in high school. Nevertheless the figure has quadrupled in the past five years, as parents are seceding from the official schools where drugs and violence are rampant and pupils are indoctrinated with political correctness and socialism.

The fact that a growing group of children seems to be escaping from the government’s influence clearly bothers the authorities. Three years ago a new school bill was introduced. The new bill refers to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and it obliges homeschooling parents to fill out a questionaire and sign an official “declaration of homeschooling” in which they agree to school their children “respecting the respect [sic] for the fundamental human rights and the cultural values of the child itself and of others.”

The declaration does not specify what “respecting the respect for the fundamental human rights and the cultural values of the child itself and of others” means. It states, however, that government inspectors decide about this and adds – and here is the crux of the matter – that if the parents receive two negative reports from the inspectors they will have to send their child to an official government recognized school.

My husband and I have refused to sign this statement since we are unwilling to put our signature under a document that forces us to send our children to government controlled schools if two state inspectors decide on the basis of arbitrary criteria that we are not “respecting the respect for the fundamental human rights and the cultural values of the child itself and of others.”

According to the Ministry of Education we have violated the law. The judiciary asked the police to take down my husband’s statement, but he refused to sign any document. He was informed that he might soon be taken to court.

Last month Michael Farris, the chairman of the American Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), warned that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child could make homeschooling illegal in the U.S., even though the US Senate has never ratified this Convention.

According to some activist judges the UN Convention is “customary international law. [...] The fact that virtually every other nation in the world has adopted it has made it part of customary international law, and it means that it should be considered part of American jurisprudence.”

Under the Convention severe limitations are placed on parents’ right to direct and train their children. Under Article 13 parents could be subject to prosecution for any attempt to prevent their children from interacting with material they deem unacceptable. Under Article 14 children are guaranteed “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” – in other words, children have a legal right to object to all religious training. And under Article 15 the child has a right to “freedom of association.”

Michael Farris pointed out that in 1995 “the United Kingdom was deemed out of compliance” with the Convention “because it allowed parents to remove their children from public school sex-education classes without consulting the child.” The HSLDA chairman said that, “by the same reasoning, parents would be denied the ability to homeschool their children unless the government first talked with their children and the government decided what was best. Moreover, parents would no longer have the right to bring up their children according to their own philosophical or religious beliefs, as the government, following the guidelines of a UN “committee of experts” would determine what religious teaching, if any, served the child’s best interest.”

Belgium, always quick to adopt and implement any measures aimed at undermining traditional morality and destroying the family, is already putting the decrees of the UN Convention into practice. Article 29 of the Convention stipulates that it is the goal of the State to direct the education of the people it governs toward the philosophy of the New World Order as “enshrined in the charter of the United Nations.” It also stipulates that each child must be prepared to be a responsible citizen by having “the spirit of understanding, peace, toleration, equity of sexes, and friendship [for] all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups of indigenous origin.” Except probably those to which their parents belong.

Hence all homeschooling parents in Belgium are sent a form in which they are ordered to sign away their parental right to choose their children’s education, to adopt the “mimimum goals set out in the [2003] law on compulsory education,” namely “to respect the fundamental human rights and the cultural values of the child itself and of others” (with the state unilaterally deciding what these human rights and “cultural values” are), and to send their children to state approved schools if state inspectors deem that their schooling does not comply with the aforementioned “minimum goals.”

Parents who sign away their right to educate their own children are subsequently harassed and intimidated. Three families that we know have had to allow inspectors into their homes who interrogate and intimidate their children, then write a report that they are not in compliance with the minimum requirements (viz. the cultural values clause) set out in the signed document, announce that they will return for further inspection and that the children who fail to qualify will be forcibly sent to schools that are officially recognised by the government.

Nowhere, however, do these inspectors outline what they are inspecting and what criteria they apply. After a lifetime of inspecting schools with clearly defined curricula to determine whether the latter qualify for subsidies and recognition of their certificates, they are now set loose on families with no other purpose than to find fault and remove their children from their care. The families do not want subsidies or recognition of certificates, so there are no objective criteria for them to meet. Their children are questioned randomly on a variety of topics, irrespective of their own educational goals, age or curriculum. And they cannot protest the inspectors’ arbitrary verdict as they have signed away their right as citizens to appeal to a higher educational authority or to the courts.

Parents who do not sign away their right to educate their own children are regarded as not educating their children at all, and hence are guilty of a criminal offence.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1114

Update:

It's the UN Wot Done It, 20 June 2006

Filed under
Homeschooling
Big Brother
Home School Laws
Christian Homeschooling