I wrote in yesterday's post about the hypocrisy of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when it comes to giving children a voice. It does provide them with with a voice to speak out against their parents and families, but not when it comes to the state. I wrote this in reference to Australia, but I think it's also important to understand how it applies here in the US and globally as well. Here's how these treaties and conventions work. Just as with any legislative body, it comes to the floor as a resolution (bill) that is voted on and passed (or not). Once it passes it is ratified and the signatory (nations that sign off on it) nations are bound by the provisions within... just like any law passed here by Congress, or Parliament in the UK and Australia. It's then up to the individual nations to enforce these "laws" just as they would any law passes in their own country. A closer look at some of the provision in the Convention on the Rights of the Child- designed to "empower" children- exposes the utter hypocrisy with which it was written (perhaps an explanation why the US held off until Bill Clinton became president to sign). Upon examination, it is painfully evident that the convention empowers the state and disempowers families.
These are excerpts from the Convention itself... "1)That every child shall be registered by the government immediately after birth. Article 7. Government tracking of all children will be required."
2)"That every child shall receive the highest attainable level of health care services. Article 24." A laudable goal, however, in Chapter 11 of the American Bar Association study on the Convention, they state that this provision indicates that a mandatory federal health insurance plan would be necessary to comply with the Convention. (Sound at all like Obamacare???)
3)"That no child is subjected to corporal punishment. Article 28, states that all schools must be prohibited from using corporal punishment. In Article 19.1, and in Article 37 (a), it not only prohibits school authorities from administering corporal discipline, but it also applies it to "parents, legal guardians, or any other person who has care of the child." This Treaty will essentially outlaw spanking. I'm no big advocate of spanking, but this is something better suited to parental oversight than the state.
4)Under the UN Convention, the United States will be required to ensure that children are vested with "freedom of expression." Section 1 states that a child has a right to "seek, receive and impart information of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." This essentially gives children the right to listen to rock music, watch television, and even have access to pornography... with no parental oversight whatsoever. "Regardless of frontiers" is particularly troubling- it can mean anything.
5)Further more, children are guaranteed the "freedom of thought, conscience, and religion." This will give children the right to object to their parents' religious training and participate in religious services of other cults. Ostensibly, witchcraft, Satanism, etc.
6)The children under the Convention would have the "right to freedom of association." Parents would be prevented from prohibiting their children from associating other children or gangs if they so choose.
7)A child will be given a "right of privacy," which of course would open the door for children to get access to abortion over their parents' objections. This would virtually invalidate all parental notification laws concerning abortion.
In effect the Convention strips parents of all rights concerning their children and given that children are incapable of raising themselves, gives that right to the state. If families do not comply, CPS comes in and takes the children away. Under this rubric the nuclear family becomes a useless anachronism. If you remember it was during the Clinton administration that the term "family" took on a new meaning (actually something like 72 meanings). Under the new paradigm, two lesbians and a Golden Retriever qualify as a family... any unit of two or more that claims family status effectively has it. CPS has devolved into a for-profit kidnapping apparatus aimed at destroying the family in the name of progress.
All quoted material excerpted from the Convention itself
