Home | About | Donate

Will the US Government Stand Alone in Rejecting Children’s Rights?


#1

Will the US Government Stand Alone in Rejecting Children’s Rights?

Home Page Author: 
Lawrence Wittner

Within a matter of months, the U.S. government seems likely to become the only nation in the world still rejecting the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Sometimes called “the most ratified human rights treaty in history,” the Convention has been ratified by 195 nations, leaving the United States and South Sudan as the only holdouts. South Sudan is expected to move forward with ratification later this year.


#2

I assume that everyone notices that missing from the list of institutions supportive of this treaty are the US Chamber of Commerce and any organization or entity related to Wall Street.

I also assume that everyone laughed at the reasons given for opposition to this treaty (which certainly have not stopped any of the so-called free-trade agreements).

The simple fact is that promoting the rights of children is at odds with the goals and values of militarism. Our weapons makers and war profiteers cannot be bothered with worrying about how many children their schemes will kill and maim.

The article implicitly tells us that Israel has signed this treaty. It certainly has not slowed down the zionist effort to eradicate the Palestinians, including their children.

mcp


#3

Not militarism, capitalism. The attitude is that the only "human right" is the right to accumulate wealth and power without any accountability for the consequences. Everything else, like this or any other human rights treaty is "socialism".


#4

What a supreme waste of time and effort. What will a U.N. resolution do to actually improve the prospects of children? Will it prevent them from being forced into military service after being forcibly removed from their homes? I'm all for everyone, especially children having wonderful lives, but a United Nations resolution can't keep atomic bombs from being developed in Iran, how on earth is it going to protect children in hundreds of countries from being exploited? This resolution is just a cover, for actually doing something to improve the plight of children around the world. Unfortunately life is difficult for many people, especially the young, but all that politicians can do is make empty promises. This is just another political promise made by people who have absolutely no power to change the situation. The only thing that can improve the plight of the child is the family, but when families don't care enough about their children to keep them away from people who teach them that the greatest honor in life is to strap a bomb to your chest and die a martyrs death, what is a resolution going to do to change that? This is an ideological battle that has to be won a family at a time through education, and the politically correct culture in which we live prevents the messages from being taught that need to be taught to these families and individuals.


#5

United Nations resolution can't keep atomic bombs from being developed in Iran

Thought you'd just slip that one in there, huh? Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon.

mcp


#6

If the USA was to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, then the current practice in the USA of sealing a child’s original birth certificate upon the finalization of their adopting would be in direct conflict of the Convention specifically Articles 7 to 10 that call for:

A Child’s right to have access to their name from birth
A Child’s right to their original identity and documentation or restoration of such
A Child’s right to not be removed or separated from their original parents
A Child’s right to be reunified with said original parents.

The act of discrimination that is currently legal in the US when we deny the adult adoptee access to their original birth certificate would HAVE TO CHANGE and the current lobby efforts of the adoption agencies and adoption attorneys and professionals do not want to see that happen.

In addition, the needless separation of families for adoption based on the needs of adults and for the benefit of the adoption industry would also have good cause to be called into question, thus putting the 13 billion dollar adoption industry at risk.

So I would agree it is capitalism, but the product in question here is our children. Which is called child trafficking, unless you call it adoption and everyone looks the other way.


#7

Child rights sound wonderful...depending on who is proposing them and what exactly they mean. I have copied a critique of the UN Agenda 21 document below regarding just a couple of ways adopting this will effect parents and children. Please read before forming an opinion. This is just a small part of it. Look it up for more information.
"Before getting into the details of the document, it is important to know that the articles of this Convention are intended to be imposed on every single child in the world, as the CRC states, "a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years." [emphasis added] (Article 1)

To make certain that no child born in the world will evade the oversight of the United Nations, and to ensure that all of the children are accounted for, the Convention wants to make sure that every child is "registered immediately after birth." (Art. 7, Sec. 1) It is not made clear which organization the United Nations would like your child registered to.

Also in the preamble of the document, the authors state their belief that "the child should be...brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations." Persuading the children to follow in the "spirit of the ideals" of the United Nations, and convincing them they have special "rights", is an important aspect of the CRC. As with many United Nations programs, propaganda through mass media, children's literature, and more, will play a major role in shifting the public's, and mainly the children's, attitudes in favor of the CRC:
"Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child" (Art. 17, Sec a.)
"Encourage the production and dissemination of children's books" (Art. 17, Sec c.)
"Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being..." (Art. 17, Sec. e.)
If you think you will be able to keep your child away from this indoctrination, by home-schooling, you are wrong. Home-schooling will seemingly be outlawed as Article 28 clearly states that the goal is to "Make primary education compulsory and available free to all." The definition of compulsory is "required by regulations or laws; obligatory". Every child will be forced to go to the "free" government schools, receive the UN propaganda, and learn all about having "rights". Later in this analysis we will learn how national governments are citing the CRC to oppose home schooling in their country.

Another important aspect of the CRC is ensuring that there is nothing that interferes with the child from being being able to exercise their "rights", including the child's parents. The second article of the convention states that governments are to respect and ensure all the rights set forth in the Convention regardless if they conflict with the religious, ethnic, or political views of the parents of the child:
"States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status." [emphasis added] (Article 2, Section 1)
A critical thinker, at this point, may question, if the goals of the CRC are to promote the "harmonious development" of the child, why the rights of the child would differ from the parent's beliefs? What are these "rights" that the UN wants children to have, and why would they conflict with the parent's beliefs? A deeper look into the language used in the Convention may reveal some clues as to why this is.

One aspect of the convention that may come in disagreement with parents is the UN's belief that children should be excluded from punishment by the parents, and be allowed to participate in whatever activity, or express whatever opinion, they choose, even if it is contrary to the rules laid out, or beliefs, of the parents.
"States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members." (Article 2, Section 2)