The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) Must Not Be Ratified!

[Erik the Red]

If this international treaty is ratified here in America, it would supersede our Constitution and become the law of the land. This would be an affront to parental rights and would put us in jeopardy of surrendering those rights to the State. This has been ratified in every nation around the world except for the USA and one other. And we are getting dangerously close to it being ratified here as well. If you haven't heard about this treaty or would like to learn more, check it out here:


The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) Must Not Be Ratified

 

[Slartibartfast]

From [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child]Convention on the Rights of the Child - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The preemption doctrine requires the Federal Government to have an established and pervasive pattern of regulation in the subject matter at issue. Here, since States have historically established, defined, and regulated the parent/child relationship, the Court will likely find that 10th Amendment rights should prevail over the Supremacy Clause.

In many jurisdictions, properly implementing the Convention requires an overhaul of child custody and guardianship laws, or, at the very least, a creative approach within the existing laws. The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping and have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.

The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.

The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and asks that the child's viewpoint be heard in such cases. The Convention forbids capital punishment for children.

Whats so bad about it? Seems like common sense things to me, except maybe for the opinion part.

 

[phattonez]

# According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.16.

# Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.17.

# Christian schools that refuse to teach “alternative worldviews” and teach that Christianity is the only true religion “fly in the face of article 29″ of the treaty.18.

# Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.19.

Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.20.

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.11.

# A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.12.

Those seem like pretty big deals.

 

[Jetboogieman]

# According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.16.

That seems right to me. Bombs or Children? I pick children.

# Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.17.

That's pretty damn vague.

# Christian schools that refuse to teach “alternative worldviews” and teach that Christianity is the only true religion “fly in the face of article 29″ of the treaty.18.

Children should be exposed to other points of view, its a healthy good thing.

# Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.19.

Ah let them have it.

Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.20.

Ok the abortion thing withour parental knowledge, that can be a problem. But depending on the situation may be nessecary. But I think children have the right to reproductive health information.

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.11.

Yeah this is a toughie, I got spanked as a kid, reasonably, but other parents were not so reasonable with their kids. I turned out fine... some of them did not.

# A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.12.

Depends if the person could be rehabilitated. still a chance they could be a productive member of society at a later date.

 

[Erik the Red]

Children should be exposed to other points of view, its a healthy good thing.QUOTE]

If you look into it more deeply, you will see that it is not a matter of considering alternative religions. It is a case where the parents can not teach a child a particular religion if the child doesn't want it and the child can be taken away and placed in the care of the State as a result. A child will also have the right to sue his/her parents and there is no iron clad definition of how an infraction is defined. The actual treaty is available for viewing.

 

[phattonez]

Depends if the person could be rehabilitated. still a chance they could be a productive member of society at a later date.

Sure, it could happen, but I don't want some sociopath to be released back into society because he was a minor when he killed someone.

 

[Deuce]

While I understand the OP's objections to some of the particular statutes, the thread title is hilarious out of context of what's actually in the treaty. Oh noes! The children are about to gain rights! THIS MUST STOP!

 

[Erik the Red]

While I understand the OP's objections to some of the particular statutes, the thread title is hilarious out of context of what's actually in the treaty. Oh noes! The children are about to gain rights! THIS MUST STOP!

Deuce,

It is obvious by your ridicule that you didn't read any of the article whatsoever. Children already have a lot of rights which are largely enforced by CPC. This treaty is not about protecting children. It is about stripping parents of their rights and placing them in the hands of the State. For instance, a child can "sue" a parent for teaching them a religion that they don't want to learn and the State would give themselves the discretion of removing that child from his/her household. This is just a very small segment of a much larger ominous picture.

 

[Degreez]

Deuce,

It is obvious by your ridicule that you didn't read any of the article whatsoever. Children already have a lot of rights which are largely enforced by CPC. This treaty is not about protecting children. It is about stripping parents of their rights and placing them in the hands of the State. For instance, a child can "sue" a parent for teaching them a religion that they don't want to learn and the State would give themselves the discretion of removing that child from his/her household. This is just a very small segment of a much larger ominous picture.

You have a problem with that? Parents should be allowed to indoctrinate?

 

[Renae]

Oh look, our resident Progressive adore the idea that the State should over see the raising of children! Shocking!

Give me liberty or give me death. We're getting damned close to that breaking point.

 

[Erik the Red]

You have a problem with that? Parents should be allowed to indoctrinate?

I have a larger problem with expanded government meddling in the affairs of private citizens.

 

[Renae]

I have a larger problem with expanded government meddling in the affairs of private citizens.

Degreez and Duece don't have a problem with that, because it's possible the parents might make the "WRONG" decision. Government, will ensure that doesn't happen. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

:roll:

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

You have a problem with that? Parents should be allowed to indoctrinate?

That state already does that, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Orion]

In 90% of the cases, I am against child services coming and removing children from their parents. This ability should be more restricted, not expanded upon. Giving the child the ability to sue the parent is preposterous if true.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Thanks for the better details phat. The first link was an alarmist website and not worth reading and all I could find was wikipedia.

# According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.16.

I see nothing wrong with that.

# Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.17.

I am not sure what this means. Most kids spend most of their time playing already.

# Christian schools that refuse to teach “alternative worldviews” and teach that Christianity is the only true religion “fly in the face of article 29″ of the treaty.18.

I have a problem with this one. I think private schools should be allowed to do that, but they shouldn't restrict scientific education and do things like only teach creationism. We need reality based education if we are ever going to compete economically as a nation.

# Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.19.

I also have a problem with this one. Some parents have a religious or moral reason to not do this. I don't agree with them, but if they think they are doing the right thing, than it is not up to anyone else to stop them.

Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.20.

This, unfortunately, can be necessary at times.

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.11.

I have a problem with this one. One of my kids has an emotional disorder and some days, when hes out of control, the threat of violence is the only thing I can use to bring him in line long enough for me to calm him down. I hate doing it, but it is sometimes necessary.

# A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.12.

Those seem like pretty big deals.

I am not sure how I feel about this one.

Children should be exposed to other points of view, its a healthy good thing.

If you look into it more deeply, you will see that it is not a matter of considering alternative religions. It is a case where the parents can not teach a child a particular religion if the child doesn't want it and the child can be taken away and placed in the care of the State as a result. A child will also have the right to sue his/her parents and there is no iron clad definition of how an infraction is defined. The actual treaty is available for viewing.

On a practical level, if a child isn't interested in a particular religion, they aren't going to bother to learn about it anyway, unless forced to. So, on that level, I don't see an issue. My problem with this provision is that if a family likes to go to church on Sunday and the kid doesn't want to. It looks like it might mean that either a parent stays home or the parents have to arrange for baby sitting. I have a big problem with this since it imposes on the parent's freedom of religion and religious expression or it puts a possible financial burden on those parents when many cannot afford it.

 

[The Uncola]

If this international treaty is ratified here in America, it would supersede our Constitution and become the law of the land. This would be an affront to parental rights and would put us in jeopardy of surrendering those rights to the State. This has been ratified in every nation around the world except for the USA and one other. And we are getting dangerously close to it being ratified here as well. If you haven't heard about this treaty or would like to learn more, check it out here:


The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) Must Not Be Ratified

Good grief!

What a bunch of paranoid twaddle.

:crazy3:

 

[Slartibartfast]

I have a problem with this one. I think private schools should be allowed to do that, but they shouldn't restrict scientific education and do things like only teach creationism. We need reality based education if we are ever going to compete economically as a nation.

oops left out a word.

Should be: We need reality based education if we are ever going to continue to compete economically as a nation.

 

[PeteEU]

Funny how there was no right wing uproar when other treaties and conventions were signed and ratified by the US.....and we are talking about treaties and conventions that have a far bigger impact on the US than this.. oh well, just more hypocrisy from the right. Guess they want to be able to have child slaves and legalise paedophilia or something.

 

[Renae]

Guess they want to be able to have child slaves and legalise paedophilia or something.

You shouldn't guess. It makes you look worse then normal.

 

[PeteEU]

You shouldn't guess. It makes you look worse then normal.

Hey I am not the one against this treaty.. you and your right wing hypocrites are.

 

[Renae]

Hey I am not the one against this treaty.. you and your right wing hypocrites are.

How are we hypocrites? Because we're against a treaty that usurps the power of the parent?

Again, people like you as I said above people like you are afraid parents might make the WRONG choices so you support the Government doing it for us.

 

[liblady]

# According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.16.

# Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.17.

# Christian schools that refuse to teach “alternative worldviews” and teach that Christianity is the only true religion “fly in the face of article 29″ of the treaty.18.

# Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.19.

Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.20.

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.11.

# A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.12.

Those seem like pretty big deals.

damn...i have to agree.

 

[Jerry]

Whats so bad about it?.

It's the UN trying to put us under their rules.

 

[Manc Skipper]

It's the UN trying to put us under their rules.

Nothing to do with children's human rights? Sharing the holdout position with Somalia must be such a comfort to the US. Standing alone against children's basic rights will be awkward once Somalia sign up, as they intend to do soon.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It's the UN trying to put us under their rules.

Is the mere existence of rules a problem or is it rules that you disagree with?