This has not been a good month.It seems that everywhere you look, anti-family, anti-life forces are on the march.
The latest is the resurrection of a new international treaty from the United Nations. This treaty would enshrine children's rights internationally. This is a Clinton-era relic which had been moth-balled since the late 1990's. Here's a good link for more information.
For some Utopians it sounds like shangri-la, but it's flaws are numerous:
-Creates a government agency to supervise parents and to ensure that children are given the opportunity to have binding arbitration to resolve disputes. You have to love this one. For example, your minor daughter wants to have sex and you say no. Hypothetically, she could sue you and be given that freedom. Access to abortion, religious freedom and any other issue could be arbitrated. Essentially, children would be owned by the state and indoctrinated in state ideology. Parents would become temporary custodians of their children.
-Imposes upon "national governments to ensure children's rights and that they have agreed to hold themselves accountable for this commitment before the international community." Yikes. What kind of international "supervision" will that entail? Ever heard of "Big Brother?"
This radical treaty pushes child autonomy. Its bad news for our nation, for parents and children.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Incorrect - the CRC does not require any such government agency to be set up, so such a dispute would never go to such a body. The CRC makes clear the lead parental role. The US requirement would be to submit a report to a UN monitoring committee every 5 years re the state of children's rights in the nation, and at the sane time parental and children's bodies could submit their views. The committee then makes recommendations which the US can implement, but does not have to. There is no UN body to arbitrate on this, it's all consensual.
All of the anti-stuff I have read is grounded in myth, inaccuracy and rank prejudice. Homeschoolers see it as somehow threatening them - but homeschooling is perfectly in accord with the CRC. The only contention may come if parents seek to deny children access to ideas, a conflict which exists anyway in the US where parents claim homeschooling enable access to ideas they say the state does not teach (e.g. creationism or intelligent design) but where maybe they themselves deny access to evolutionary ideas.
Parents ARE temporary custodians of their children - from 0-17. 'Custodian'? interesting choice of word. That could mean 'protector', 'guardian', 'jailer', 'trustee'.... Which?
Post a Comment