PDA

View Full Version : U.N. Treaty Might Weaken Families




Pepsi
01-14-2009, 05:35 AM
One of the issues American families could face this year is the ramifications from a treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

You may ask, “How could a treaty directly affect internal decision-making by American families?” We generally think of treaties as agreements affecting international relations between countries. The U.N., however, has initiated treaties that not only affect international relations, but also the domestic relations of member nations as well. These treaties, sometimes called “conventions,” require member nations that ratify the treaty to implement the requirements as binding law or rules.

On Nov. 20, 1989, the U.N. adopted the CRC and submitted it for ratification to the member nations. It has been ratified by 193 nations—the United States is one of the few countries that has not ratified it.

The ratification process requires a two-thirds vote by the U.S. Senate. On Feb. 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., signed the CRC on behalf of the United States. The CRC, however, has never been sent to the Senate for ratification because there is insufficient support to pass it.

Due to the recent election, however, there are rumblings from Capitol Hill that there will be an effort to seek ratification of the CRC during the next congressional cycle. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong supporter of the treaty, and as secretary of state, would have direct control over the submission of treaties to the Senate.

Why should passage of the CRC be of concern? It likely would have a negative impact on domestic law and practice in the United States. Article VI of our Constitution makes treaties—and remember, conventions are viewed as treaties—“the supreme law of the land.” The CRC would be treated as superior to laws in every state regarding the parent-child relationship. This would include issues regarding education, health care, family discipline, the child’s role in family decision-making, and a host of other subjects.

Article 43 of the CRC establishes an international committee on the rights of the child to examine compliance by member nations. This committee, which sits in Geneva, has final authority concerning interpretation of the language contained in the CRC.

Two central principles of the CRC clearly are contrary to current U.S. laws related to parent-child relationships. The CRC provides that in all matters relating to children, whether private or public, or in courts, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Additionally, nations should ensure that children are capable of expressing their views freely in all matters affecting them, giving due weight to the age and maturity of the child.

This is contrary to traditional American law, which provides that absent proof of harm, courts and social workers simply do not have the authority to intervene in parent-child relationships and decision-making. The importance of this tradition and practice is that the government may not substitute its judgment for that of the parent until there is proof of harm to the child sufficient to justify governmental intervention. It is clear that in two very important areas of the parent-child relationship, religion and education, there will be potential for tremendous conflict.

The international committee in Geneva, in reviewing the laws of practice of countries that have ratified the CRC, has expressed its concern that parents could homeschool without the view of the child being considered; that parents could remove their children from sex-education classes without the view of the child being considered; that parents were legally permitted to use corporal punishment; and that children didn’t have access to reproductive health information without parental knowledge.

The bottom line is the CRC would drastically weaken the United States’ sovereignty over family life, which would have a substantial impact on every American family

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/washingtontimes/20091120.asp

Pepsi
01-14-2009, 05:40 AM
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

The Senate will likely begin to consider ratification of this international treaty in early 2009. If ratified, the UN-CRC would radically alter the flow of power in the United States, taking away the authority of parents to decide matters pertaining to the lives of their children, and giving that power away to the United Nations. An 18-member international panel would decide what is best for American children and, hence, for America's future.

http://www.parentalrights.org/learn

Pepsi
02-28-2009, 08:14 AM
Sen. Boxer tries to hurry children's 'rights' treaty Opponents warn U.N. measure would put government in place of parents.


Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is urging a hurry-up timetable for adoption of a United Nations treaty she says provides for "basic human rights" for children but opponents argue would destroy parental rights to raise their children as they choose.

"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said, according to Fox News.

Boxer wants quick action on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a proposal on which for 20 years Congress has refused to act because of concerns and questions.

The instrument was signed by President Clinton in 1995, but opposition and critics' concerns that it would override centuries of practice, policy and law regarding children have left it unadopted.

The document would create "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion," which critics say would usurp the role of parents in directing their children's religious training.

But Boxer said during a hearing in the Senate recently she feels a "humiliation" that the U.S. has not adopted the plan.

WND reported just a week ago one of the nation's top experts on children's rights, Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org and chancellor of Patrick Henry College, said the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child would mean every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.



"The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election," he warned.

The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide but not the U.S. or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to formally recognize the measure, and in the U.S. there's been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.

The international treaty creates specific civil, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." While the treaty states parents or legal guardians "have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child," Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents' decisions are in their children's best interest.

According to the Parental Rights website, the CRC dictates the following:

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.
Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.

"If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child."

At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.

"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

Fox News reported the standing U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, an 18-member panel in Geneva, would review the rights of children in all disputes

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90111

Pepsi
03-02-2009, 04:20 AM
bump

kathy88
03-02-2009, 05:16 AM
This is disgusting.

Pepsi
05-26-2009, 06:43 AM
bump

Dequeant
05-26-2009, 10:12 AM
..................

ChaosControl
05-26-2009, 10:49 AM
I wish someone who throw these fascists off a cliff.

Pepsi
06-25-2009, 08:40 PM
I agree

Pepsi
02-10-2010, 07:52 PM
bump

FrankRep
02-10-2010, 08:01 PM
The Obama administration has begun reviving efforts to have the United States sign onto a United Nations children's rights treaty known as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. By Beverly K. Eakman


Beware UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/1774)


Beverly K. Eakman | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com)
Monday, 31 August 2009

Pepsi
06-06-2010, 07:40 AM
The Senate is expected to take up the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.



The effort is a dangerous treaty for the family, according to pediatrician Rosemary Stein of Burlington, North Carolina, and a spokesperson for the Christian Medical Association (CMA).

"It takes away the parents' rights to rear their child and gives it to the government," she explains. "The government becomes the caretaker and the guardian, and the parent becomes the babysitter. Another way to define it would be 'the government takeover of our children.'"

If the contract is enforced, the government would have the right to intercede or supersede if officials believe the parents are doing something that is not in the best interest of the child. An example of this comes from Germany, where the government has passed laws that ban parents from homeschooling their children.

"I didn't know that it was this insidious, and at the same time, this overwhelming," Stein laments. "It goes over everything -- what you teach them, what you do with them [and] how they're reared."

The CMA spokesman predicts this will change society from the bottom up. For instance, a 16-year-old girl in Great Britain asked her parents to let her boyfriend move in and share her bedroom. When the parents said no, the teen filed suit and won.

It is not known when the U.S. Senate will try to ratify the treaty, so Dr. Stein says people need to start contacting their senators to voice their views.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1033838

slothman
06-06-2010, 12:13 PM
There are only 192 member nations in the UN, not counting the Holy See.
What are the other 2?

As for the parts:
I do think they shouldn't get a life-time sentence.
Most of the others I agree with the RP forums though.
I haven't read the link.