What’s Wrong with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

[MJN]

This is from HSLDA and I know some of you don't like them, but I thought since we had talked about parental rights last week, that you might like to read this.


It’s usually looked upon as a positive means of holding countries accountable to protect children. But the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is so much more than that.

When the UNCRC was brought up for ratification in 1995, the core group of Senators in opposition concluded that this treaty marked a significant departure from the originally constituted relationship between state and child. They found, in fact, that it was literally incompatible with the right of parents to raise their children as well as a wholesale giveaway of U.S. sovereignty.

But why?

Widespread concerns about the UNCRC stem from the treaty’s repeated emphasis on one key principle used to guide all decisions affecting children: consideration of the “best interests of the child.” This principle underlies all of the rights found in the Convention.

Article 3 of the CRC provides that “in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

In other words, policies affecting children at all levels of society and government should have the child’s best interest as the primary concern.

The trouble occurs when this principle appears as a guiding principle for parents in article 18(1), which states that “Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.”

Who knows best?

The Convention’s emphasis on the “best interests” principle is a sharp break from American law.

In the 1993 case of Reno v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the ‘best interests of the child’ is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody.” In the 2000 case of Troxel v. Granville, the Court struck down a grandparent visitation statute because decisions about the child were made “solely on the judge’s determination of the child’s best interests,” without regard to the wishes of the parent.

The Court’s decisions in Reno and Troxel reflect a fundamental tenet of American family law, which recognizes that parents typically act in the best interests of their children. Indeed, “United States case law is replete with examples of parents fighting for the best interests of their children,” ranging from a child’s right to an education to the right of personal injury compensation. Except in cases where a parent has been proven to be “unfit,” American law presumes that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, and defers to that parent’s decision.

The UNCRC’s Brave New World

But the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child changes all of that. The treaty supplants this traditional presumption in favor of parents with a new presumption in favor of the state.

According to Geraldine van Bueren, an international scholar who assisted in the drafting of the CRC, the language of “best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child’s or the parents’, providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child.”

So instead of placing the burden of proof on the government to prove that a parent is unfit, the Convention places the burden of proof on – yes, parents. Any parent who claims that other interests might just be more important than the state’s characterization of the “best interest” of the child could end up battling the state to protect their rights as a parent.

Where do we go from here?

There is a solution to this dilemma. The strongest, most effective way of protecting children and parents from an alarming state-based agenda is to amend the Constitution to protect parental rights. This can only take place through the concerted efforts of millions of dedicated parents across the United States.

[Patty Joanna]

Dear Molly,

I am not completely up to date / speed or whatever on all of this, but as I recall from previous reading, the key is who knows what is best for "the child" (which is rather abstract, wouldn't you say?): the parents or the state? YES some kids fall through the cracks with wicked, ignorant or lazy parents...but is giving the State the say-so over *all* children the right answer to this?

I think that is the key area of, ummm, discussion.

It's basically the debate over homeschool vs. public school know-how writ large.

[sdWTMer]

Honestly, I would rather the UN not tell me how to deal w/ my own child. Inevitably with any solution there are still going to be those that fall between the cracks.

[Peek a Boo]

are you literally asking *us* what's wrong w/ the UN stuff, or are you *sharing* what's wrong w/ the UN stuff?

If you're asking, then I'll dole out a ton of links that basically tell teh UN to shove it. If you're sharing, then yeah --I was on the same side of this issue as HSLDA before I even knew about HSLDA, lol

[mcconnellboys]

I think this is a very dangerous bit of legislation, as written, that will absolutely set precedent for giving the state the final say in our children's lives, should there ever be any question that comes up and moves into the judicial system.

One area of concern for many parents right now, for instance, is in the move by several states to start to try to legislate mandatory vaccinations of various sorts. A growing movement of parents with autistic children (or those somewhere on the spectrum) feel that hereditary predisposition toward sensitivity to the contents of these shots may actually have contributed to or caused their children's conditions. If the state can *require* immunizations of any sort without consultation or agreement of the parents, then what?

This can be expanded to virtually any area. Can the state set what they consider to be appropriate exercise (or lack thereof) guidelines? Can they set nutritional guidelines? And what if their rules are not then followed? Do parents lose custody?

Regena

[GothicGyrl]

So basically we(the guv'ment) are erroniously moving us towards a Communist Country rather than a Democratic one?

For the record, I can't stand HSLDA and think they have no business sticking their noses in matters that don't concern education AND I think they've worn out their "needed" welcome. I think they stick their noses in business that just shouldn't concern them and don't stick their noses in busines where they are needed most. However, I can see why they would be standing up against this because if we are moving towards Commuism, we might as well just rename ourselves the Guv'ment's Republic of America.

[Karin]

So basically we(the guv'ment) are erroniously moving us towards a Communist Country rather than a Democratic one?

. However, I can see why they would be standing up against this because if we are moving towards Commuism, we might as well just rename ourselves the Guv'ment's Republic of America.

I was waiting for you to get here, sure you'd be against this. I'm no fan of HSLDA, but when I see a spade, I call it a spade, and I don't think that the rights of the child is going to be any good without a counterbalance of the rights of the parents. What I have observed is a continuing erosion of rights and freedoms coming from both main US parties, not far behind Canada's erosion of rights, IMO.

As a dual citizen who has both seen the US criticized for not following the UN enough (I come from a family with a lot of liberals) and seen some Americans up in arms against the UN (I've met a lot of conservatives), I find this next question interesting. My question to you is, which should come first in the US--the constitution or the UN? Do you believe that all the other countries in the UN have the best interests of the US at heart? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but it seems to me that you enjoy a good debate. Also, I would like to add that I have an aunt and uncle who are quite Marxist in outlook, so they're all for the rights of the child, high taxes, etc.

[Maria from IN]

What's wrong with it? Plenty.

Mostly because it certainly does not take a village (or the UN) to raise a child...it takes parents who get up off their butts and grow up and step up and raise them like the adults they are.

More and more we are turning over our children to other people to be raised, immunized, educated, etc. and we don't even realize we're doing it.

I would just like the chance to raise my child the way I want, not have the UN or the state or the president tell me how to do it. If I wasn't mature enough to have a child, shame on me.

Granted, I know something has to be done about child labor and food, insurance, and medications (as well as a whole host of other things) for children in third-world countries and war-torn regions--but don't tell me in America how to do it. I'm here just trying to take care of my own little corner, and people like the state and the UN and the school board and the pediatricians can leave me to it and concentrate their efforts on those who need them.

Maria from IN, who's still feverish and coughing and frustrated and heard about this convention several years ago--and is still honked off about it.

[mcconnellboys]

I don't know how Canada's rights have been eroded, could you please elaborate some?

Thanks,

Regena

[GothicGyrl]

I was waiting for you to get here, sure you'd be against this. I'm no fan of HSLDA, but when I see a spade, I call it a spade, and I don't think that the rights of the child is going to be any good without a counterbalance of the rights of the parents. What I have observed is a continuing erosion of rights and freedoms coming from both main US parties, not far behind Canada's erosion of rights, IMO.

As a dual citizen who has both seen the US criticized for not following the UN enough (I come from a family with a lot of liberals) and seen some Americans up in arms against the UN (I've met a lot of conservatives), I find this next question interesting. My question to you is, which should come first in the US--the constitution or the UN? Do you believe that all the other countries in the UN have the best interests of the US at heart? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but it seems to me that you enjoy a good debate. Also, I would like to add that I have an aunt and uncle who are quite Marxist in outlook, so they're all for the rights of the child, high taxes, etc.
I think you completely and totally misunderstood my post! I am against HSLDA BUT I am also against this!!!

I think I said as much... I might not agree with HSLDA, but I can see why they are standing up against this. I am so totally against the Rights of the Child thing. I don't understand how you took my post any other way.

I see this move, if it passes (which I hope it won't) as a move towards Communism. China has zero rights when it comes to parenting their own children (right down to the number of children they are allowed to have) and I see this measure as a move in that direction, so I am so totally against this!!!

And if I had to argue the rest of your post--the Constitution comes first. My rights, my child's rights, your rights, your child's rights are not to be trumped by some know it all deviant greasy fingered politicians.

[Cathy in IL]

What really gets me with all this is when I look at America's foster care system that is supposed to be based on the "best interest of the child." I have seen children pulled from loving parents who are low-income because they don't have the equipment the special needs child should have. Then they place the child in a home that still doesn't have any more equipment than the parent from whom they were removed. Caseworkers don't return phone calls, don't attempt to meet the needs of the child or reunite them with the parents. I have seen children left with abusive parents when people all around are crying out to the state that the children are being abused. I have seen children linger for years in pediatric nursing homes because the caseworkers are too lazy to find an adoptive home. The foster care system is a mess, yet it is based on the "best interests of the child."

[Peek a Boo]

Toni --I *think* she took her post as you intended, and just expanded it a bit. At least, i don't see anything that raises flags that she misunderstood your post, cuz, like you said, it seemed pretty clear :)

As for her Q:
My question to you is, which should come first in the US--the constitution or the UN? Do you believe that all the other countries in the UN have the best interests of the US at heart?

Absolutely the Constitution. And freedom. And that means the freedom to fail too. If you can't fail completely, you're not completely free. But that makes no sense to some people :/ And no way do all the other countries in the UN have the interests of the US at heart.

[GothicGyrl]

Ok whew. Cuz I am so not for this thing... I really don't want anyone thinking I am. :)

Karin--I'm sorry if *I* misunderstood you the way you posted... it sounded like you thought I was FOR this bit of rubbish...

[Fourmother]

OK, I'll be the lonely voice of dissent.

I don't see this UN convention as harmful to the interests of US parents at all. UN conventions like this one are neither binding on US law nor are they really intended to be. The purpose of this convention is to bring the pressure of international morality down upon nations that don't recognize the human rights of children for cultural, economic, and political reasons. We all know that there are many, many places on the planet where children do not enjoy the right to be protected from exploitation and abuse, or the right to receive education, nutrition, etc. This is the target audience. Of course the matter of who decides the "best interest of the child" is an important question. Unfortunately, children worldwide will die while the privileged hammer out its finer points. I would further argue that the UN is a weak organization, dependent on the United States for its influence and funding. The idea that this paper dragon could ever threaten US soveignity or change the Constitution is laughable and beside the point.

I simply don't share the deep and abiding disdain I often see directed at the UN or even government in general. Living in a society means there will be institutional rules, costs and benefits. The only way to escape these things completely is to go off the grid, but citizens have the power and responsibility to change things they don't like without checking out. Does government go overboard? Does it get it wrong at times? Yes, of course, but it's not always wrong. My life has been materially improved by the government in ways that even my grandparents didn't enjoy just two generations ago. Essential benefits like the abolition of slavery, voting rights, and access to education were not granted to my ancestors in the past. These freedoms have come to my children by way of government intervention. History teaches me that I cannot depend solely upon the marketplace to do the right thing by me, my family, the nation, or the world, and that sometimes a global village is needed to speak truth to power or raise a child. There must be balance.

As for the HSLDC, I personally believe they are in the business of fear. (Not unlike the government that they are so often railing against.) They are blowing any threat to parents' rights presented by this UN convention way out of proportion to serve their own interests. HSLDC propaganda is filled with horror stories about parents who are jailed and trodden upon in their efforts to homeschool their children, but these cases represent a tiny minority of homeschoolers. Homeschooling is far more a part of the mainstream than it used to be, and this fact threatens the HSLDC. Most families will never, ever be faced with a boogeyman social worker at the front door just because they are homeschooling. Don't get me wrong, I am truly thankful for HSLDC's legitimate work in support of homeschooling and for homeschooling pioneers who, like the Little Rock Six, opened doors to education for families like mine. Still, like all institutions government and otherwise, the HSLDC has its own agenda. One aspect of their agenda seems to be fear of working themselves out of a job.

Just my 2 cents.

[8FillTheHeart]

OK, I'll be the lonely voice of dissent.

I don't see this UN convention as harmful to the interests of US parents at all. UN conventions like this one are neither binding on US law nor are they really intended to be. .

Actually, this is incorrect. If a treaty is ratified by the US Senate, it does become binding US law. It is precisely b/c of this that most Americans are disturbed by the UN proposals being ratified.

I copied and pasted this from a legal website. I highlighted the key points.

B. U.S. Treaties and Agreements

“Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ‘the supreme Law of the Land.’ Yet, the word treaty does not have the same meaning in the United States and in international law.”1 The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty “as an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.”2 Under United States law, however, there is a distinction made between the terms treaty and executive agreement. “In the United States, the word treaty is reserved for an agreement that is made ‘by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate’ (Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution). International agreements not submitted to the Senate are known as ‘executive agreements’ in the United States.”3 Generally, a treaty is a binding international agreement and an executive agreement applies in domestic law only. Under international law, however, both types of agreements are considered binding. Regardless of whether an international agreement is called a convention, agreement, protocol, accord, etc.; if it is submitted to the Senate for advice and consent, it is considered a treaty under United States law.
For a brief overview of this issue, see Frederic Kirgis, International Agreements and U.S. Law, ASIL Insight, No. 10, May 1997. To learn more about the Senate’s treaty making powers, see the Senate’s web site

[Dot]

I'll join you in dissent here. I wonder how many citizens have actually taken time to research the actual document. There's an awful lot of fear mongering going around. It's natural to get riled up when you hear that you won't "be in charge of your kids" anymore, you won't be able to choose their re;igion, etc. Hogwash. The UN does not hold supreme over our federal laws, anyways, since when have we ever done exactly what the UN says, except for the areas where the UN is overwhelmingly controlled by the US voting strength. It's a shame when so much boils down to American politics...here's a simple to read discussion about the treaty, with many of the worrisome spots spelled out. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml

[Peek a Boo]

momof7 is absolutely right --this *is* a legally binding treaty. If it's not binding on us, then it's not binding on its target audience either.

Dot --Harvard is great, but there's a reason we have so many lawyers in this country --no one lawyer is right :-)
There is a difference between fear mongering and those who interpret a document differently. "Harvard has spoken" simply isn't a valid argument.

I *have* read the treaty, and still disagree with it. There is absolutely no reason to waste global time on a treaty that is impotent in its enforcement --if we don't have to enforce it or can interpret it how we want, so can other countries. If the UN is such a weak and ineffectual entity, then we have no business wasting our tax dollars on it.

The UN has already adopted it. It is binding on those coutnries which ratified it. We simply don't need to. If indeed it will have no effect on us and can't usurp the Constitution, then there's simply NO REASON for us to add One More Treaty to our list, esp w/ an organization as horrible at enforcing it's own sanctions as the UN.

If y'all's dissent basically boils down "since when have we ever done exactly what the UN says" and "this isn't binding on us anyway" then why should we ratify something that factually IS legally binding on us and will have no supposed effect?? That's like me going in and making a huge deal with the school district that we will follow X. Y, and Z for homeschooling, but they can't enforce it and I'm not bound to it. What sense does that make?

[Peek a Boo]

forgot to add a link:

This is just a quick overview of the treaty at Wiki for anyone just starting to read up on it. Lots of links to primary resources at the bottom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child

[mcconnellboys]

This is correct. And Mrs. Clinton has been pushing for this to be passed into law by the U.S., as I understand it.

Regena

[Fourmother]

Thanks for pointing out my error. Yes, ratifying the convention would make it law. However, after reading all the links provided here, I'm even more in agreement with Dot about the fear mongering that seems to be surrounding it. I'm not convinced that the convention would have much of a net effect on US law at all, but what it would do is bring pressure to bear on countries which do not respect human rights. Our moral indignation in condemning s*xual exploitation of children in Thailand, enslavement of children in Sudan or female g*nital mutilation of children in Mali rings hollow while the US and Somalia alone refuse to ratify the convention. Very sad.

[8FillTheHeart]

Actually it is much more complicated than that. For many countries, signing the Convention is nothing but a mere token. It is precisely b/c of the way American law is written that makes signing/ratifying treaties a major threat to independent self-government as a country. Treaties become equivalent in law with our constitution. For most countries, they aren't worth more than the paper that is signed.

Our not signing does not impact the pressure on other countries. It only prevents the UN from having any direct legal recourse pertaining to the specific issues of the treaty. If Sudan or Thailand continue to exploit children, our lack of signing the treaty is not the cause. It is a direct result of their gov't.

[Peek a Boo]

Amen, momof7 ---The world has already demonstrated that if we do something that they don't already agree with, our doing it has little effect. If *all the other nations that have already ratified it* can't bring pressure to bear on countries that *just. don't. care.*, what makes you think that the US signing on will matter?

Our moral indignation also rings hollow if we sign a treaty that we either won't be following if it conflicts w/ our laws or won't be enforced. THAT is hollow.

[Cadam]

In the US, treaties such as this overrule our own constitution so this would be the highest law of the land. The very idea makes my skin crawl :eek: this is one piece of legislation I will fight and fight. It's very very dangerous.

[GothicGyrl]

And honestly, I'd much rather see the UN sign in a treaty that addresses specific problems within certain countries...because as it is written now, as much as I despise HSLDA, them getting involved is a major thing.

So what I'd rather see is the UN addressessing specific things like:

China's explotation of children.
Somali's mutilation of female gentials
Saudi's dehumanization of women (specifically young women)
The US's inability to have a decent Foster Care/Adoption system

etc...

As it is written now, it really can threaten our right to homeschool as well as our right to parent the way we see best. You are correct that the chances of it affecting the US are slim, due to our laws, however, this treaty WOULD and COULD be an open backdoor, allowing certain things to creep in to our lives that have no business being there.

If only they would focus on the main issues each country has the problem with and stop trying to control the whole thing, there might not be a problem. But as it is written right now, it threatens even the most basic of human rights and like others have said, if no one is really enforcing it, what good is it actually doing?

[PariSarah]

But when you have abusive parenting, what do you do? And how would you recognize abusive parenting? How do you distinguish between merely inept and truly abusive parenting?

Well, the standard is that the child's well-being is honored. That's what good parents do--they act in the best interests of the child. That's what makes them good parents. They make mistakes in judgment, but they generally support the well-being of the child. And bad parents act with other interests in mind--revenging themselves on someone else, maybe, or without recognizing the child's needs at all, or releasing their own pent-up rage by whipping on a defenseless being. How do we know that they're bad parents? Because they don't care about or act within the best interests of their children.

I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with the notion that some of us bandy about on this board--that I have a "right" to "do what I want" with "my" children. I wouldn't put it that way. I would say--and this is what judges tend to say when these kinds of legal disputes come up in the US--that unless a parent is shown to be abusive or horrifically neglectful, they can be presumed to decide better than anyone else what is in the child's best interests. The child's best interests are the standard, and the parent is presumed able and willing to care for those interests until s/he proves otherwise. In fact, being raised by a parent, even a flawed one, is almost always considered "in the best interests of the child." The parents' flaws are not counted against them legally unless they rise to the level of abuse. The state does not generally speaking judge the parenting of non-abusive parents.

But there are parents out there who should. not. ever. have access to their own children. How else would one articulate how one recognizes those parents, why the state should intervene on the child's behalf, an on what basis the state proceeds once it begins to intervene? "The best interests of the child" sounds like a good way to do it, no? What else would you suggest?

There are some things I don't like about the UNCotRotC (and I haven't read it in the last year or so, so I will refrain from specifics), but the idea that "the best interests of the child" is a good thing for states and parents to care about is not one of them.

[PariSarah]

I'd much rather see the UN sign in a treaty that addresses specific problems within certain countries...because as it is written now, as much as I despise HSLDA, them getting involved is a major thing.

So what I'd rather see is the UN addressessing specific things like:

China's explotation of children.
Somali's mutilation of female gentials
Saudi's dehumanization of women (specifically young women)
The US's inability to have a decent Foster Care/Adoption system

etc...


I heartily agree. There is so much evil in the world that needs naming. I wish governments and non-governmental and para-governmental organizations would be braver about naming names.

[battlemaiden]

Parisarah said, "But there are parents out there who should. not. ever. have access to their own children. How else would one articulate how one recognizes those parents, why the state should intervene on the child's behalf, an on what basis the state proceeds once it begins to intervene? "The best interests of the child" sounds like a good way to do it, no? What else would you suggest?"

I would suggest many things, and they all stop short of the far removed and ineffective UN.

For instance, how about we invest in communication between agencies that come in contact with kids in abusive situations?

Here in Hawaii a little toddler was thrown over an overpass by a mentally unstable or possibly high meth addict. The little boy's mother's boyfriend left him to be "watched" by this nut. Tragic. What's more tragic is that earlier in the day the boy had been found by a police officer wandering in the street and was returned to the home. If that police officer had access to the Department of Child Services (I'm not certain that is the title of that entity in Hawaii) he would have seen past involvement and intervened more substantially.

If we can't make simple improvements on local levels what good does labeling by the UN help? Not a darn thing. They should stay out of our business and we the citizens of our sovereign country should demand better services here at home.

Having the "best interest of the child" should be applied on a local level by those who have the ability to enforce the policies that are set forth. Nobody has any doubt that the poor child who was left in the care of an unstable neighbor should have been removed from that home...but the UN can't and wouldn't have been able to do anything to stop that horrific event.

Jo

[PariSarah]

I hate child abuse stories. They seriously keep me up at night. My mom used to come home crying from work when she had a patient that was a child abuse victim. Ugh, ugh, ugh. The things some people come up with . . .

I think you're right about what's actually needed for change. I wasn't so much saying that the UNCRC was a good or needed thing; I was addressing the fear that some people in the thread seemed to have that "the best interests of the child" was some invasive standard that would allow the government to tinker with all of our decision-making.

Perhaps I misread other people's fears.

[Leonor]

If we are all so concerned about the UN Convention on the RIghts of the Child (and we should be) then what we need to do is sign the Petition for the Amendment to recognize parental rights as a constitutional right.
This is not about supporting HSLDA or not supporting them. This is about our rights as parents.

[Cadam]

But Sara who decides what really is the best interests of a child? I am not comfortable with the state deciding what is best for my child. In Germany it is considered abusive to homeschool. Many state officials right here in the good ol' USA believe the same thing. Only the hard won laws allow us to do what we do. It is far from perfect but putting parental rights above the rights of the state allows the people most knowledgeable about the child to make the decisions. I don't want my right to choose what I think is best to be taken away by some international court. This treaty will not stop evil people from being evil but it would curtail the freedoms of many normal American parents over time.

[CleoQc]

Two cases that I heard of... (no, not child abuse stories)

A 13yo boy was bored at church. He announced he would no longer attend church. Well, that didn't go well with his highly religious family. The father forced him to attend (I don't think physical force was involved, that could have counted as abuse, but there was no mention of it). The child complained at school, the family was taken to court! The best interest of the child was decided by the court as 'not having to go to church'. What the child wants is now more important that what the parents want.

There's a vocal group in Quebec that believes teaching any child about the family's religion is abusive, because the child does not have the proper logic skills to choose what to believe (but the tooth fairy and easter bunny are fine). I've seen quite a few articles in La Presse - now a completely atheist newspaper that was founded by highly Catholic journalists over 100 years ago! - that calls for a total ban on religion teaching *within the family* before a child is 16. And religion will no longer be a subject in the school room, except for a new course that will do a comparative study between all world religions, starting in grade 1, and till grade 12. But families should not be allowed to state what they believe in!

No, I don't want 'the child's best interest' to be decided by courts.

[nancypants]

Two cases that I heard of... (no, not child abuse stories)

A 13yo boy was bored at church. He announced he would no longer attend church. Well, that didn't go well with his highly religious family. The father forced him to attend (I don't think physical force was involved, that could have counted as abuse, but there was no mention of it). The child complained at school, the family was taken to court! The best interest of the child was decided by the court as 'not having to go to church'. What the child wants is now more important that what the parents want.

There's a vocal group in Quebec that believes teaching any child about the family's religion is abusive, because the child does not have the proper logic skills to choose what to believe (but the tooth fairy and easter bunny are fine). I've seen quite a few articles in La Presse - now a completely atheist newspaper that was founded by highly Catholic journalists over 100 years ago! - that calls for a total ban on religion teaching *within the family* before a child is 16. And religion will no longer be a subject in the school room, except for a new course that will do a comparative study between all world religions, starting in grade 1, and till grade 12. But families should not be allowed to state what they believe in!

No, I don't want 'the child's best interest' to be decided by courts.


Speak it Cleo!

[PariSarah]

But Sara who decides what really is the best interests of a child? I am not comfortable with the state deciding what is best for my child.

Of course not. Because you're a good parent! (I'm assuming, anyway.) Your children don't need anyone to rescue them.

But some children are patently in need of rescue. I'm not comfortable with the state interfering with MY parenting, but I sure as heck want it to interfere with their parents' parenting. Yes, I do! As I said in response to Jo, child abuse stories keep me up at night, so I won't repeat them here, but I'll just say that there are a number of situations where I'm really, really happy that the state interferes with some people's choices.

Don't you feel the same way about some families? Not most, not many, maybe only a very, very few. But in those very, very few cases, how would you construct a just law, a just society that allowed for some interference by somebody to save children from horrendous, horrendous abuse?

I'm not at ALL suggesting that the UNCRC is the best way to do this. I'm only suggesting that a just nation has to have SOME mechanism for articulating what counts as abuse-severe-enough-to-warrant-interference. What mechanism would you suggest?

But maybe you're concerned about specific standards for what counts as abuse--maybe the UNCRC mentions some specific things that bother you. Is that it? Are there specific regulations/provisions in the UNCRC that trouble you? Do they specify that every child has the right to be educated by someone other than his parents?

Only the hard won laws allow us to do what we do. It is far from perfect but putting parental rights above the rights of the state allows the people most knowledgeable about the child to make the decisions. I don't want my right to choose what I think is best to be taken away by some international court.

I agree with you, that US laws regarding schooling are better than Germany's (and many other countries, too). And in general, I think the US gets family law more right than wrong. I'd rather live under US laws than any other laws in the world, on most issues, come to think of it. I wouldn't want to see the UNCRC replace, wholesale, US law. But I don't see how it would. The UN doesn't prosecute any but the grossest offenders of human rights. (And they do a . . . stinky . . . job of that, frankly.) They don't care about you homeschooling your kids.

The laws actually enacted and enforced within the US are the ones you have to worry about.

[PariSarah]

. . .that calls for a total ban on religion teaching *within the family* before a child is 16.

I think the National Education Association wants something similar to be passed in the States. I can't find it right this second, but they put together a list of "rights of the child" that basically sound like the child has a right to be free from parenting of any kind. :confused:

One of them was phrased so ludicrously that it sounded like a child had the right not to be wanted by his parents. Seriously. Their point was that children should be free from parents' desires to live through their children (parents that want their kids to grow up and be everything that they wished they had been or whatever), but it was phrased so badly that the parents were wrong to want anything--even any good thing--for their child. :rolleyes:

Again, I haven't read it in a long time, but I don't remember the UNCRC being like that.

I'm happy to be corrected, though. "Freedom from religion" is a ridiculous imposition to place on parents, and one that I would fight tooth and nail.

[Colleen in NS]

I don't know how Canada's rights have been eroded, could you please elaborate some?

Thanks,

Regena

Yes, I'd like to hear more about this, too.

[Peek a Boo]

{for Colleen} Cleo just posted a couple cases above. I'm guessing they are not the only cases?

[Karin]

I don't know how Canada's rights have been eroded, could you please elaborate some?

Thanks,

Regena

The last I heard, the anti-spanking law was passed in Canada, which bans more than abuse. Also, freedom of speech has been curtailed with the anti-hate speech act. I'm against hateful speech, but this can go far beyond just hateful speech. Churches are no longer able to disagree with homosexuality. Before anyone lambasts me, one of my adopted brothers is gay and we get along very well, but whether or not I agree with what he does is my business and if I don't agree I should be allowed to voice my opinion respectfully.

There's more, but I really hate to go into all of it. Down here in the States we've lost a lot of privacy (the so-called privacy of information actually gives more people access to medical records than before) too. I am not up on what's going on in Canada. I will say that when I left Canada our SINs were far more protected than the American Social Security numbers, and I don't know if that's changed or not.

[Karin]

I think you completely and totally misunderstood my post! I am against HSLDA BUT I am also against this!!!

I think I said as much... I might not agree with HSLDA, but I can see why they are standing up against this. I am so totally against the Rights of the Child thing. I don't understand how you took my post any other way.

I see this move, if it passes (which I hope it won't) as a move towards Communism. China has zero rights when it comes to parenting their own children (right down to the number of children they are allowed to have) and I see this measure as a move in that direction, so I am so totally against this!!!

And if I had to argue the rest of your post--the Constitution comes first. My rights, my child's rights, your rights, your child's rights are not to be trumped by some know it all deviant greasy fingered politicians.

Sorry--it was my last read and post of the day, and I did miss this. I feel badly and if anyone gives me a bad rating over this, I truly deserve it. I should never read these things when my kids start getting noisy and should have come back later to read your post. I'm so glad to know we're on the same page here, because even though we don't agree on everything, I do think you take the time to think, based on your posts.

[Karin]

And honestly, I'd much rather see the UN sign in a treaty that addresses specific problems within certain countries...because as it is written now, as much as I despise HSLDA, them getting involved is a major thing.

So what I'd rather see is the UN addressessing specific things like:

China's explotation of children.
Somali's mutilation of female gentials
Saudi's dehumanization of women (specifically young women)
The US's inability to have a decent Foster Care/Adoption system

etc...

As it is written now, it really can threaten our right to homeschool as well as our right to parent the way we see best. You are correct that the chances of it affecting the US are slim, due to our laws, however, this treaty WOULD and COULD be an open backdoor, allowing certain things to creep in to our lives that have no business being there.

If only they would focus on the main issues each country has the problem with and stop trying to control the whole thing, there might not be a problem. But as it is written right now, it threatens even the most basic of human rights and like others have said, if no one is really enforcing it, what good is it actually doing?


YES. You're making all the arguments I was going to.

[Karin]

Ok whew. Cuz I am so not for this thing... I really don't want anyone thinking I am. :)

Karin--I'm sorry if *I* misunderstood you the way you posted... it sounded like you thought I was FOR this bit of rubbish...

THANK YOU. I should have read all your posts before I posted the first apology. I actually didn't think you were FOR it, or I wouldn't have started the debate. But I did misread one thing you said about it leading to communism, and thought you were asking someone else if they thought that rather than that you thought it. My grandparents escaped from communism back in the 1920s, and I just can't support anything like that, despite my aunt and uncle (who are on the other side of the family, fwiw).

I'm vehemently against this. But I also hate the UN. Okay, I said it. I won't say that everything they've ever said & done is bad, but I don't like them, and I come from a fairly pro-UN family. I spent so many years being a huge debater/arguer that I try to be polite now and don't often get into these discussions this way (I notice I don't usually stimulate a ton of posts in big debates, so I'm either boring or being polite enough.)

[nancypants]

The last I heard, the anti-spanking law was passed in Canada, which bans more than abuse. Also, freedom of speech has been curtailed with the anti-hate speech act. I'm against hateful speech, but this can go far beyond just hateful speech. Churches are no longer able to disagree with homosexuality. Before anyone lambasts me, one of my adopted brothers is gay and we get along very well, but whether or not I agree with what he does is my business and if I don't agree I should be allowed to voice my opinion respectfully.


This is not true actually. Here (http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/CBC_Supreme_Court_upholds_spanking_30JAN04.aspx) is an old article about the law that was passed. While I don't believe it's the state's business (unless true abuse is apparent), spanking is still legal between the ages of 2 and 12. However if you spank your 18 month old in the privacy of your own home there is no way the government will ever know or be able to do anything, short of installing Big Brother cameras in every home. Even as it is, it's an unenforceable law. I am not suggesting that I agree or disagree with spanking children below and above those ages, merely stating that the law is unenforceable.

As for Canadian laws on hate speech, I have found what I think is a decent description of the bills/laws, etc. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm) pertaining to that topic. By linking to this page, I am not saying that I agree with everything on the website. But I thought it provided a pretty fair description. Pastors are still, to date, allowed to teach as the scriptures teach on the subject of homosexuality, which I'm sure some would coin as "hate" no matter how it is presented.

My brother in law is homosexual so I know what you are saying.

[Karin]

Two cases that I heard of... (no, not child abuse stories)

A 13yo boy was bored at church. He announced he would no longer attend church. Well, that didn't go well with his highly religious family. The father forced him to attend (I don't think physical force was involved, that could have counted as abuse, but there was no mention of it). The child complained at school, the family was taken to court! The best interest of the child was decided by the court as 'not having to go to church'. What the child wants is now more important that what the parents want.
No, I don't want 'the child's best interest' to be decided by courts.

Yes, and I agree with you here, Cleo. Because in my experience, once children reach the age of logic, etc., they often turn their backs on their parents' beliefs. Even Hutterite children sometimes leave their colonies, and they're more closed in than the Amish.

[Karin]

This is not true actually. Here (http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/CBC_Supreme_Court_upholds_spanking_30JAN04.aspx) is an old article about the law that was passed. While I don't believe it's the states business, spanking is still legal between the ages of 2 and 12. However if you spank your 18 month old in the privacy of your own home there is no way the government will ever know or be able to do anything, short of installing Big Brother cameras in every home. Even as it is, it's an unenforceable law.

As for Canadian laws on hate speech, I have found what I think is a decent description of the bills/laws, etc. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm) pertaining to that topic. By linking to this page, I am not saying that I agree with everything on the website. But I thought it provided a pretty fair description. Pastors are still, to date, allowed to teach as the scriptures teach on the subject of homosexuality, which I'm sure some would coin as "hate" no matter how it is presented.

My brother in law is homosexual so I know what you are saying.

Okay, thanks for setting me straight. Gosh, how it was manipulated in the article I read! And I heard of a pastor who was going to Toronto being told that they could not say anything about homosexuality. Either they were misinformed or there is some local law. I feel so much better about my home country again!!!!

[nancypants]

Okay, thanks for setting me straight. Gosh, how it was manipulated in the article I read! And I heard of a pastor who was going to Toronto being told that they could not say anything about homosexuality. Either they were misinformed or there is some local law. I feel so much better about my home country again!!!!

Well, don't get me wrong... I am sure there are people trying to make these laws say something they do not say and then get judicial precedent on their side... It's entirely possible that the laws can and are being misapplied in some cases.

[GothicGyrl]

Karin--my comment about it leading to communism was more of a "ok so if this passes, then we open the door to becoming a communist country, just like China".

Not so much me questioning someone else, but more so me asking "If this does pass, is it then that our rights are equal to Communism?"

See what I mean? :)

[LizzyBee]

My question to you is, which should come first in the US--the constitution or the UN? Do you believe that all the other countries in the UN have the best interests of the US at heart?

Are you asking the collective you or just the op? My answers are:

1. The constitution; Our forefathers shed their blood for the right to govern themselves; it is our heritage, our right, and our responsibility to continue to govern ourselves.

2. Absolutely not.

[Audrey]

There's a vocal group in Quebec that believes teaching any child about the family's religion is abusive....

You know I love ya, Cleo :) and I'm not going to argue about the cases you presented. They're completely out of line -- I say that, and I AM an atheist. It's out of line for the QC govt. or any govt. to legislate on religion, period -- in or out of the family.

However, I do want to say that QC is not, realistically, representative of Canada. I know you know that, too. The things that have happening in QC -- the cases you mention, as well as the atrocious anti-homeschooling legislation that's been passed lately, to name only a few -- are truly shocking. I honestly do not know why QC can get away with these things unchecked. Were these types of legislation to be presented in other parts of Canada, there would be so much public scrutiny, they'd never get off the debate floor.

[nancypants]

You know I love ya, Cleo :) and I'm not going to argue about the cases you presented. They're completely out of line -- I say that, and I AM an atheist. It's out of line for the QC govt. or any govt. to legislate on religion, period -- in or out of the family.

However, I do want to say that QC is not, realistically, representative of Canada. I know you know that, too. The things that have happening in QC -- the cases you mention, as well as the atrocious anti-homeschooling legislation that's been passed lately, to name only a few -- are truly shocking. I honestly do not know why QC can get away with these things unchecked. Were these types of legislation to be presented in other parts of Canada, there would be so much public scrutiny, they'd never get off the debate floor.

I agree completely. I hate to say it but it really is like its own country...

[CleoQc]

I agree completely. I hate to say it but it really is like its own country...
Don't hate it. As far as any law is concerned, Quebec is independant, and not representative of Canada. It's pretty much its own country.

[mcconnellboys]

Oh, dear! That's VERY scary. That sounds like Golden Compass material.....

Regena

[Karin]

Karin--my comment about it leading to communism was more of a "ok so if this passes, then we open the door to becoming a communist country, just like China".

Not so much me questioning someone else, but more so me asking "If this does pass, is it then that our rights are equal to Communism?"

See what I mean? :)

Yes, it was all clear to me this afternoon. Last night I was just itching to stir up some kind of interesting discussion somewhere, and next time I'm going to do it when I can focus 100 percent, not as I'm about to sign off with noisy kids. But it did get some great discussion going.

Yours is a good question, and I think that things would be in better shape if more people took the time to really think through acts, issues and political platforms like we've been doing on this board.

[Karin]

Are you asking the collective you or just the op? My answers are:

1. The constitution; Our forefathers shed their blood for the right to govern themselves; it is our heritage, our right, and our responsibility to continue to govern ourselves.

2. Absolutely not.

I was asking the collective hive mind, but started off with that post. It would also be an interesting pair of questions to ask people who do support the rights of the child as put forth by the UN.

[Volty]

Seems to me there's nothing in the treaty that interferes with US law. US law is generally interpreted in protecting freedoms anyways. What it's most concerned about is big picture things: female circumcision, child labor, child poronography or prostitution, child abuse, sex trafficing, any number of abhorent things.

I can't find anything controversial in it to well intended western folks. Even corporal punishment, which is generally frowned upon, is unadressed. Seems really harmless to me and doesn't interefer with any of our constitutional rights.

Not ratifying the treaty means the US lacks a legal vehicle to beat, coerce, force other nations to ratify the treaty itself. Not ratifying means the US will not have a legal mechanism to complain about sex trafficing or female genital mutilation.

Looking into this, I honestly am pretty bitter that people are making up boogeymen about what it means. For your families, it means nothing so far as I can tell. For some kidnapper in Myanmar it brings down international pressure on his government to lock him away.

[Volty]

Karin--my comment about it leading to communism was more of a "ok so if this passes, then we open the door to becoming a communist country, just like China".

Not so much me questioning someone else, but more so me asking "If this does pass, is it then that our rights are equal to Communism?"

See what I mean? :)

Lenin, Marx and Mao would role in their graves if they could see what 'Communist China" is like. There's no communism in China except in name. It's all crooked crony capitalism much more akin to fascism than to communism.

It's still screwed up but most Communists in China wouldn't know the difference between a hammer and a sycle and none of the party members have ever touched either to make a living.

[Fourmother]

Looking into this, I honestly am pretty bitter that people are making up boogeymen about what it means. For your families, it means nothing so far as I can tell. For some kidnapper in Myanmar it brings down international pressure on his government to lock him away.

Volty, this strongly echoes my feelings. I'm not usually affected by forum discussions, but quite frankly, I have been deeply saddened by this thread. This isn't a "you put your chocolate in my peanut butter" kind of disagreement, and the stakes are highest for those who have no voice at all. You've given me a little hope. Thank you for posting your thoughts.

[Peek a Boo]

"Seems to me there's nothing in the treaty that interferes with US law. US law is generally interpreted in protecting freedoms anyways. What it's most concerned about is big picture things: female circumcision, child labor, child poronography or prostitution, child abuse, sex trafficing, any number of abhorent things."

So where are these things prohibited in the treaty?? It is a treaty that doesn't explicitly state the problems and allows states to interpret it however they see fit. It is a HOLLOW treaty. It does NOTHING to give legal teeth to any of the serious problems.

"I can't find anything controversial in it to well intended western folks. Even corporal punishment, which is generally frowned upon, is unadressed. Seems really harmless to me and doesn't interefer with any of our constitutional rights."

THAT's one of the problems!! It is HOLLOW!!! We are making a huge stink about something that our own laws already address!

"Not ratifying the treaty means the US lacks a legal vehicle to beat, coerce, force other nations to ratify the treaty itself. Not ratifying means the US will not have a legal mechanism to complain about sex trafficing or female genital mutilation."

Bull. *we* are not The Police of the UN. Do you want us to be?? We already have laws on the books that address those things. That's plenty of "leading the cause" --and if our current actions/voice in speaking out and preventing those crimes don't "set an example" to the world, then signing an unenforceable treaty will do diddly squat. As it is the UN doesn't enforce the treaties/sanctions it already has in place. Anyone up for another "strongly worded resolution?" And when we step in?? The world gets mad. Don't give me this baloney about how us signing a treaty will give us legal leverage. **The UN is not concerned with legal leverage** Tell that to the Oil for Food guys.


"Looking into this, I honestly am pretty bitter that people are making up boogeymen about what it means. For your families, it means nothing so far as I can tell. For some kidnapper in Myanmar it brings down international pressure on his government to lock him away."

It does??? where does it "bring down pressure" on a kidnapper?? Are the kidnappers in Mayanmar any worse than kidnappers here? Is kidnapping for trafficking purposes worse than kidnapping for other purposes? Does the treaty spell this out?? Are you saying that when a kid is kidnapped in the US there will be more international pressure? I thought this wouldn't really affect our laws?? MYANMAR HAS ALREADY SIGNED THE TREATY --THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY BOUND BY IT ALREADY. If signing it makes all the difference, then why should we be worried about *us* not signing it--the country you say you are concerned about is already under this treaty. Do we need to sign it in order for it to be effective in Myanmar? Of course not. And to make it even "stronger" there's an Optional Protocol about child trafficking in place. Yeah....one of those "But I strenuously object!!"

If the US can't speak out about and/or effect change on Really Bad Things happening in other countries w/o signing an unenforceable treaty, then the state of the world is even worse off than I thought.

If the UN cannot enforce its own treaty when allll the other member nations have already signed it [except us and Somalia], and the success of this treaty hinges on our ratifying it, then the United Nations is worse off than i thought.

If millions of kids' unheard voices are dependent on the US signing an unforceable treaty when everyone else has -that nobody is going to enforce unless we sign it--, that means the UN is a JOKE and cannot do anything worth signing.

If that doesn't "deeply sadden" people then I would posit that you are focussing on making the US the "problem" instead of looking at the bigger picture : the rest of the world is incapable of working together and enforcing their own treaties.

edited to add: read the section on Myanmar at wiki-- the bigger nations are even TOLD to NOT get involved personally w/ places like Myanmar --we are told to leave it w/ the UN. It *is* w/ the UN!!! Myanmar is bound to the treaty and we are not s'posed to intervene. Us signing the treaty does nothing to help kids in Myanmar.

[Peek a Boo]

However, I do want to say that QC is not, realistically, representative of Canada. I know you know that, too. The things that have happening in QC -- the cases you mention, as well as the atrocious anti-homeschooling legislation that's been passed lately, to name only a few -- are truly shocking. I honestly do not know why QC can get away with these things unchecked. Were these types of legislation to be presented in other parts of Canada, there would be so much public scrutiny, they'd never get off the debate floor.

....Except what usually happens [historically, not just limiting it to North America or this era] is when these things get passed in one area, they are used as precedent in another. Regulation rarely diminishes: it increases. "But it WORKS over there! Why can't we do that too??!!" I hope you're right and things like this continue to be shot down as many places as possible. But i sure wouldn't count on it.

[gardenschooler]

Thanks for bringing this up, Molly, as this has prompted me to go and reread the text (which I haven't in a very long time).

[Peek a Boo]

Insomnia strikes again---

here's an even More Fun approach:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty15_asp.htm

"Declarations and Reservations" --official statements made when signing the treaty.

Akin to Bush signing statements. "We're signing this, but we don't agree w/ A, B, or C, so we're exempt from that part and ain't gonna do nuthin' to enforce it."

but by golly --they signed it.


edited to add:
oh-- and don't forget to read all the Objections to those reservations and declarations. Yup. mega legal teeth in action. I'll bet they are really scared.

[Volty]

Peek,

Getting diplomats from all over the world together to agree on anything is always a major challenge. The UN is often hamstrung with ineffectivness and an inability to enforce it's treaties without the backing (muscle) of it's member states.

So on the rare occasion when you can actually get an agreement that the US, Brits, French, Russians, and Chinese can agree on, as well as most everybody else, it's usually because something serious is wrong. And all these talking heads have come together on this.

A lot of times, the only way third world countries will change these sorts of repugnant policies is from international pressure. And the only legally binding document that can be used to browbeat them is a treaty. If they don't sign the treaty they're liable to sanctions cuts in aid, trade, etc. If they do sign, then compliance can be measured and exerted from their governments. And a lot of it does get watered down.

Last year when we were looking into it, it was illegal for Americans to adopt children in Cambodia. What was happening was that orphanages were making lots of money selling infants to foreigners, often by bribing women or even by hiring kidnappers to steal them from nursing mothers. In this regard, the US can pressure change directly on Cambodia, no UN treaty is needed.

But what of this in Thailand fathers have been known to sell their underage daughters to brothel owners. In lots of African countries, Mali for sure, girls' clitorises are removed as part of a tradition. Now this is just as reprehensible too, and a lot of well meaning diplomats in the UN are doing their best to outlaw these things. Now in Mali and in Thailand these things are normal. But if the international community can pressure their goernments to outlaw these practices, then NGOs (chairities or aid agencies, or concerned local citizens on the ground there) can pressure the government to crack down on it.

As far as making the US the world police, LOL, I'm as far opposed to that as you could imagine. Even though I personally did that and in my case it worked out pretty well. :cool:

As for US law, we have plenty of laws on the books outlawing these sorts of thing but our laws only apply within US borders. If we want these laws passed in other countries, we have to ge them to sign this treaty. If we don't sign the treaty ourselves, we don't have the right to exert pressure on others. Does this make sense.

Also, I love the avatar. Julie Newmar slinking across the TV scren in a tight body suit is irresitable, but it doesn't look like her or Halle Berre or Cassandra Cane. Is it you?

[Peek a Boo]

See, i agree with you that it can be tough to get people to agree on something like this. But our laws already show that we ARE in agreement with the gist of this. The US signing it really doesn't provide any *additional* international pressure: if Every. Single. Other. nation can't help apply pressure, then us signing historically has little impact. As you said, the UN will have to get THEM --the ones who have not signed the treaty and NEED to apply these laws-- to sign the treaty. The UN could easily point to the fact that we are already in compliance w/ this treaty by our own laws, but instead everyone is looking at it backwards: they are putting blame and focus on a nation that is NOT the problem. We absolutely have the right to exert pressure on other nations: it is international law and we are a UN member. If the UN asks for military assistance in securing Situation A in Country B that deals directly with this treaty, do you think they will disallow our help because we haven't signed the treaty? When a crisis situation occurs, help will be welcome from just about anyone that will agree to help. Our own laws demonstrate our commitment to that. We certainly don't need to sign a treaty that *not every legal opinion* agrees will be in our best sovereign interest.

So no, I disagree on the "bringing pressure" argument --esp if the US is supposedly the lynchpin for the whole works. For every sanction the UN sets up, there's a loophole that other nations refuse to follow to enforce it properly. back to Oil for Food.... If we are that important, I want a reduction in UN dues :-) If we are that important, the other nations should be paying dues to the US. If we are that important, we should garner a bit more respect in actions we DO take.

-----
It's Michelle Pfeiffer. But it absolutely might as well be me :)
http://www.redoakrecord.com/index.asp?show=11/15/2007&Page=1

[Volty]

I don't know how America or Americans can expect to exert pressure on a third world dictator to follow a treaty if we don't agree to follow the treaty ourselves.

[GothicGyrl]

I don't know how America or Americans can expect to exert pressure on a third world dictator to follow a treaty if we don't agree to follow the treaty ourselves.
Which is precisely why, as it is written now, this treaty is useless. As I said in previous post, if they could write a treaty focusing on the main problems within each country--like genital mutilation for Mali, Child Labor in China, etc.. then it wouldn't be so hard to sign in.

But this treaty is so open-ended, with MANY backdoors to be left wide open, that all other rights we may have now, could possibly be lost if one discovers those backdoors and uses them.

That's the crux of it for me. It is not specific enough to specific areas each country should be focusing on. South Africa has a problem with young girls being raped because the men believe virgins cure AIDS--how is this treaty going to stop that? It isn't, actually. Especially when you've got a government that doesn't want to change (like the US).

If it could just be more focused on major issues and leave the rest alone, it wouldn't be a problem.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't know how America or Americans can expect to exert pressure on a third world dictator to follow a treaty if we don't agree to follow the treaty ourselves.


Well sure-- and i don't know how America expects a treaty that has no teeth to be ABLE to exert any pressure. Especially when the UN keeps telling us to NOT exert pressure and to leave it up to the UN to handle internally --all those countries have already agreed to the treaty. Either sign the treaty on their terms [no exerting pressure] or don't sign it and exert all kinds of pressure that we want.

We are at an impasse :-)

[Volty]

The UN has no enforcement mechanism. It was delberately designed weak because nobody wanted them to be/become a world government. Enforcement is handled by the constituent members, the biggest member on the block is the US. Without US pressure, who's going to enforce it? The Brits? Canada? Russia? France?

[Peek a Boo]

The UN has no enforcement mechanism. It was delberately designed weak because nobody wanted them to be/become a world government. Enforcement is handled by the constituent members, the biggest member on the block is the US. Without US pressure, who's going to enforce it? The Brits? Canada? Russia? France?

I absolutely agree with you: The UN was deliberately designed to be weak. It's working about as well as the Articles of Confederation did :-)

ok, so you think the US *is* supposed to be the Police of the World, enforcing treaties cuz the other nations can't or won't... You think this treaty will be ineffectual and NOT keep kids safe unless the US *acts* to enforce it. Us signing it alone will do nothing --it must be *enforced*.

So if we are the ones who are going to be enforcing an idea --cuz that's all this treaty is: an idea, w/ no solid specifics to back it up-- then we should be able to enforce that idea on our own, pointing to the fact that this treaty is international law [whether we agreed to it or not, it *is now*], and based on the history that our own laws ARE in compliance w/ this treaty whether we sign it or not. We have no legal authority to enforce the treaty. We are specifically told to NOT enforce the treaty -to let the UN handle it internally. So any action we take would be outside the UN. Wait a sec-- we've seen this scenario before.......

which brings us back to: Everyone whines when we act as the enforcement police --it has the OPPOSITE effect of what WE want, so there goes the "we gotta bring pressure" argument. Bringing international pressure ONLY works when all the other nations are solidly on board. That doesn't happen too often. It did *once* w/ Saddam Hussein and he backed down, but they didn't have the guts to come together like that again. So here we are.

Enforcement sounds great! I could handle the UN giving the US authority to enforce these treaties. But we have to look at how it has actually worked when the US tries to enforce stuff around the world. But for the sake of discussion, how do YOU think the US should enforce this treaty? Wait for the UN to give us authority to enforce it? Go ahead anyway With a military presence?? or Sanctions? Summit Talks? How do you see those situations playing out in accomplishing the goal of keeping children safe?

[mcconnellboys]

You said:

"If the UN cannot enforce its own treaty when allll the other member nations have already signed it [except us and Somalia], and the success of this treaty hinges on our ratifying it, then the United Nations is worse off than i thought."

The UN can NOT enforce anything and has not been able to enforce anything for decades. It may not EVER have successfully enforced anything, like its parent, the League of Nations, before it. I think Wilson's idea was a good one, but it would actually require ALL member nations to work together to enforce sanctions, etc. against noncompliant countries. And there are too, too many of them ready to make deals under the table for easy cash, rather than upholding *ideals* in order to make the world better..... Wilson was a great idealist, but idealism doesn't always work in a world full of opportunists.....

Regena

[Peek a Boo]

You said:

"If the UN cannot enforce its own treaty when allll the other member nations have already signed it [except us and Somalia], and the success of this treaty hinges on our ratifying it, then the United Nations is worse off than i thought."

The UN can NOT enforce anything and has not been able to enforce anything for decades. It may not EVER have successfully enforced anything, like its parent, the League of Nations, before it. I think Wilson's idea was a good one, but it would actually require ALL member nations to work together to enforce sanctions, etc. against noncompliant countries. And there are too, too many of them ready to make deals under the table for easy cash, rather than upholding *ideals* in order to make the world better..... Wilson was a great idealist, but idealism doesn't always work in a world full of opportunists.....Regena

yeah. That was my point exactly ;)

[Cadam]

I didn't read the whole thread but has anyone pointed out that according to US law, international treaties overrule our own constitution?

The UN may not have teeth but the US generally tries to abide by the laws we sign. This treaty strips rights from parents across the world but it mostly affects the western nations who would actually abide by it and has little to no effect on the countries that actually need it. Why not let the people in those countries express their own outrage? For real change to take place the people must want the change.

Child trafficking and labor laws do need to be addressed but this won't help. It is poorly written and dangerous in it's current form. It is an awful piece of legislation.