I often reminisce on the days when a child’s every remark to an elder was precluded or capped off by a very solemn, respectful, “yes, ma’am; no ma’am” or “yes, sir; no sir,” and youths would not dream of forming their lips to utter a profanity in the presence of adults. This was a time when parents’ authority and rightful ability to discipline their child in the home was not usurped by authoritative figures and lawmakers.
As I examine the current state of our society and its acceptance of blatant disrespect masked in the adornment of “urban culture” and “children’s rights,” I realize that such respect is nothing more than a distant memory. And if one attempt to seek and restore this natural order, you, the parent, are likely to be cussed out by a six-year-old, your child—whose right to do so is lawfully protected—and prosecuted in the United States courts.
This shift toward basically retiring parental rights or diminishing parental authority brings to mind the UN treaty on Children’s Rights. This treaty, signed by the Clinton Administration in 1995 but never ratified into law, has been pulsating for more than 20 years; 193 countries have signed onto it, leaving two countries yet to sign it: the US and Somalia. The treaty sets international standards for government obligations to children in protection from abuse, exploitation, and ensuring a child’s right to free expression.
Experts who have studied the document say: “…the treaty, which creates ‘the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’ and outlaws the ‘arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy,’ intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.”
Representative Pete Hoekstra recently introduced a bill that would amend the U.S. Constitution to permanently “enshrine” a set of parents’ rights into American society. The bill is aimed at blocking U.S. adoption of the treaty. Hoekstra asserts that the UN treaty would have far-reaching results, some of which include:
• Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
• 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.
• Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
And even though Hoekstra’s efforts are to be applauded, because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered "the supreme law of the land," superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States.
So, who will determine how Americans rear and teach their children? A round table committee appointed by the UN, and sitting in Switzerland, will make the parental decisions for the parents of children in ALL countries signatory to the treaty—including the US, rendering the US Constitution totally useless and robbing the U.S. of sovereignty.
Even in lieu of this treaty’s prevailing adverse effects, some still adamantly support the treaty. Sen. Barbara Boxer, California, Democrat, is pushing the Obama Administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This treaty seems to tie in with what is referred to as the New World Order Movement. As it pertains to the international relations theory, Wikipedia defines “new world order” as “a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. However, in conspiracy theory, the term ‘New World Order’ refers to the advent of a cryptocratic or totalitarian world government.
“At the core of most theories, a powerful and secretive group of globalists is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign states and other checks and balances in international power struggles.”
Credible sources note that the Obama Administration will likely not approve the treaty, but one still can’t help but wonder if the governmental system is heading toward what appears to be a fascist-controlled world government. Are there clandestine groups plotting against the masses of humanity to obliterate the socioeconomic middle class? Is the threat of children’s rights to override parental rights real, and if so, where is it going to lead? No, the sky isn’t falling just yet, but based on the climate the current atmosphere is perpetuating, one can’t help but wonder if the forecast for the future will prove to be ominous or propitious.
H. Lewis Smith is the founder and president of UVCC, the United Voices for a Common Cause, Inc., a writer for the New England Informer Online, and author of Bury that Sucka: A Scandalous Love Affair with the N-Word. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP2U0jmZjec
I like this treaty, and was just thinking the other day that we need something like this. Too many children are oppressed by parents who refuse to allow their children to participate in activities that are not prescribed by their own belief systems. Too many parents oppress their own children in relationship to religion, education, employment, extra-curricular activities, and even sexual orientation.
I don't believe in your conspiracy theory, but I know many who would jump on that bandwagon. Its pretty funny to me that you say that Somalia is the only other country who has not adopted the treaty. This is not the only trend that the US lags behind the rest of the world in.
For example;
"Did you know?
• Only four countries in the world—Lesotho, Swaziland, Papua New Guinea and the United States fail to provide paid maternity leave to all workers?"
http://www.momsrising.org/film
I am more inclined that your type of conspiracy theory is more relevant to multinational organizations that control the world through media, money and corporate controls. It is in their best interest to feed the type of paranoia you are advocating here because it distracts us from worrying about our consumer pathology.
http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=2
The difference is that an international UN treaty is above board, and is balanced. Corporations on the other hand do not as of yet have any checks and balances in place that protect individuals.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
I believe in children rights. I believe that the children need to be protected. I do not believe that the UN bill is the best way. I believe that America needs to first enforce it own law to protect the children. I want to see foster care become more improved.
I do not want the government in my life but I am not going to let a child die because I wanted to be allowed to raise my child the way I wanted to. In fact I think that we should just turn are children over to the state right after they are born and let the government raise them. This will solve many problems. First, no worries that kids are in danger. Second, all those teenager having kids no worries that the daddy will not be around. Third, no worries about the who marries whom because what would the point of marriage be, a tax right off. Last but not lest, it would allow the government to have the greatest amount of control over all are lives. If you can not tell I am being sarcastic. People are stupid and we have to keep an eye out for the stupid parents. If I see a people smacking their kids trust me I will smack the parent. There is a line between discipline and abuse and it is not fine or blurred. If you think it is then do not have kids. One spank on the bottom is it no more. If you are pissed and angery then do not spank your kids. You will go overboard. If you would like to know what abuse is and how it is hidden let me ask you to read the book call "A child called 'It'" by Dave Pelzer. Let us help the kids like Dave in the story and not the 14 year old that does not want to go to church on Sunday.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
And if you're seeing lines in my writing that you feel you need to read between, they aren't there. ~N. Ledger
and I acknowledge this. I understand that the idea of the government having a say in your private family affairs is creepy.
However, I know what kind of harm many parents pose to their children. I lean on the whole, "If you are innocent, you have little to worry about," philosophy when it comes to kids.
Its not just a matter of a kid not wanting to go to church. What about kids whose parents are from another country, who want to arrange marriages for their children? What about kids who don't want to work to pay the family's bills, but want to go to college instead? Kids need to be protected,not just from abuse, but from their parents' authority.
I don't believe in legislation that restricts peoples' rights, but I am all for legislation that grants rights. Only parents who desire to control every aspect of their childrens' lives would have reason to fear such a bill.
As for kids who like to make trouble and cause drama, who would "abuse" the system by claiming false allegations, I have confidence that a system with adequate checks and balances would be able to determine these things. I am not ignorant of the fact that our current system in the USA is flawed, but I really think that kids deserve more than we have allowed them. They deserve legal recourse to protest decisions that their parents make on their behalf.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
The problem is, though, is that even things like "acceptable spanking" is considered abuse in a lot of cases.
Kids cannot enter into legal agreements because they are considered by the state to not be capable of making such decisions (whether they actually are, or not, is a different matter, though I would concur that point regarding children who aren't even teenagers yet). It makes no sense, therefore, to give children the ability to basically sue their parents for punishing them.
The problem with "giving the kids rights" is that it is taking away the parents' rights.
I do agree that many parents do far more harm than good and something needs to be done about that, but I don't agree that this treaty is the way to go about that.
We need to enforce and refine the laws that we do have, not make more that will be impossible, for a number of reasons, to enforce.
We need to improve the foster care and adoption systems so that it is easier for people who really do want to adopt can do so. We need to improve the Child Services agencies so that they actually protect the children in cases where they actually do need protecting, instead of taking children away from a healthy home because the neighbor doesn't agree with the parents' beliefs. We need to increase funding to these sectors so that they can have the resources to do their jobs effectively.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
"We need to improve the foster care and adoption systems so that it is easier for people who really do want to adopt can do so. We need to improve the Child Services agencies so that they actually protect the children in cases where they actually do need protecting, instead of taking children away from a healthy home because the neighbor doesn't agree with the parents' beliefs. We need to increase funding to these sectors so that they can have the resources to do their jobs effectively."
to this I say absolutely, yes! You are right that the issue actually being raised by this blog is the question, "Whose rights should be held supreme? Children, or their parents?" I happen to be biased because I don't know very many good parents, and I know a lot of kids who are suffering under their parents' authority. Of course, i am not a "normal" person, and neither are most of the kids I know, so I can acknowledge that there are probably a lot of decent parents out there that I am simply not acquainted with.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
dragonwolf said,
"Kids cannot enter into legal agreements because they are considered by the state to not be capable of making such decisions (whether they actually are, or not, is a different matter, though I would concur that point regarding children who aren't even teenagers yet). It makes no sense, therefore, to give children the ability to basically sue their parents for punishing them."
I don't think the answer is to give children the ability to sue their parents, and I don't think that is what the Treaty is about either. I think the idea is to include basic social rights as rights that children can freely exercise, in addition to basic survival rights of proper food, clothing and shelter.
A system that sought to incite children to seek legal aid in suing their parents would not be very practical. However, a system that asked, or even required professionals who work with children to observe for signs of social health and to coordinate with other members of the community to make sure that each child is being provided with basic and necessary tools to function as healthy and autonomous individuals would be helpful, in my opinion.
For instance, children should have much more freedom in their medical care. Children should be free to seek medical help and counseling regarding their own bodies, especially in relationship to sexual health. Children should have their confidentiality respected, especially in regards to things like substance abuse and the like. While there is a lot of legal jargon that says that kids have these rights, "unless it becomes apparent that the child is a danger to self or others,"
in reality, all a parent has to do is order a copy of their child's medical records and they have access to everything. Kids should also be required to consent to any medical treatment except where it becomes apparent that the treatment is necessary for the life or safety of the child or others. This applies to inpatient psychiatric treatment. Parents should not be able to force their children to stay in psychiatric hospitals against their will, unless the child also meets criteria to be legally held. Another case where children's rights are violated.
For another example, in the hospital where I work, patient's rights, which is established and enforced through the state, and which is in fact a separate entity of the state, says that all patients who are being treated for mental illness have the right to refuse psychiatric treatment. Adults are not forced to participate in groups or even in interviews with mental health professionals. However, our policy is that children may not refuse to participate in group therapy. If they refuse, they are supposed to sit in a chair in the hall, If they refuse to do that, a bunch of people show up and the child is given the option to walk to the chair, or to be carried there by staff. Usually the child will start fighting once staff put their hands on, and then the child is placed in restraints for fighting with staff.
this is something I refuse to do or enforce when I am in charge. I have voiced my concern and it has been ignored. I think it is wrong, and i am actually so fed up I am inclined to call patient's rights myself. People above me in management and who work opposite shifts from me have complained that i am too easy on the kids, and let them stay in bed all day, and that is why my shifts have such fewer incidents of seclusion and restraints. Too f***ing bad. What happens on my shifts is that when kids refuse groups I tell them they have to stay in their room, and cannot come out for outside activities or free time. They usually get bored within 2 or 3 hours and want to be with their peers. Then i contract them back into the group with the condition that they must attend groups, and cannot be kicked out for inappropriate behavior. It works pretty well.
My step mother once took to me to the doctors. She said it was for a regular check up. I was about 13. The doctor performed a pap smear on me. I freaked out. No one explained anything, they just told me what to do. "Take off your clothes, wear this paper gown, lie down and open your legs..." She was convinced I was having sex and wanted to make sure I didn't have anything wrong with me. i was completely traumatized by that incident. I felt like I couldn't object to what the doctor was doing, like many kids, I feared the doctor and felt like he had some sort of power over me. I couldn't believe that they didn't have to explain what they were going to do me first, and that I didn't have to give permission. i was deprived of my right to informed consent.
This is all just in relationship to one aspect of a person's rights, which is health care. There is something wrong with a society that ultimately views children as property of parents, and the child's wishes/ desires/ and needs are ignored because as long as the parent receives all of the appropriate information, and gives consents, we give that the legal power which assumes that the child has been treated fairly. In other words, the legal rights of children are removed from them and placed with the parent, without consideration for the child at all. This is treating a child like it is simply a physical extension of the parent, such as an arm or leg. Why should we have to ask our leg for permission to perform surgery on it?
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
"In fact I think that we should just turn are children over to the state right after they are born and let the government raise them."
In fact, many, many people already do this. Part of why I think that more should be done to protect children is because of this. The government is not doing a very good job in raising children, period. How can we expect individual parents to be held to a standard higher than the one the government lives by?
Regarding spanking, I think it is counterproductive, and ineffective, however, i don't think that all parents who spank are abusive, nor do they deserve legal penalties.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Why in the world do we need to sign a treaty with the UN to achieve these things? We have a perfectly good legal system why can't we just make our own laws to govern our own domestic affairs.
Most of the children in most of the countries of the world lead worse lives then the children in the USA. Apparently most of the countries in the world are signatories to this treaty. Do you really think it has improved the lives of the children in those countries? One of those countries would probably be Saudi Arabia.
Too many children are oppressed by parents who refuse to allow their children to participate in activities that are not prescribed by their own belief systems. Too many parents oppress their own children in relationship to religion, education, employment, extra-curricular activities, and even sexual orientation.
Even though Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the treaty and the USA is not, in which country do you think children are more likely to be oppressed by parents who refuse to alto allow their children to participate in activities that are not prescribed by their own belief systems. Too many parents oppress their own children in relationship to religion, education, employment, extra-curricular activities, and even sexual orientation?
Treaty or not, the children in Saudi Arabia are much more likely to be oppressed by their parents and there are a lot of countries that apparently signed this treaty that are even MORE OPPRESSIVE then even Saudi Arabia. The Treaty is basically meaningless.
Why not just pass a domestic law? One reason would be that the majority of the people in the United States probably disagree with you and don't think it is wise to turn parental authority over their children on its head.
As a conservative I believe that, except to prevent abuse or endangerment, society does not have a lot of business sticking its nose into how people raise their children. The family is the basic building block of society and these rearing decisions belong with the family. Liberals tend to have much more of a collectivist view (it takes a village). Most conservatives live in small towns and rural areas. Most liberals live in urban areas. Urban areas have high crime and crappy schools and poor educational outcomes. Rural areas do much better. Who is doing the better job raising their kids?
Most conservatives live in small towns and rural areas. Most liberals live in urban areas. Urban areas have high crime and crappy schools and poor educational outcomes. Rural areas do much better. Who is doing the better job raising their kids?
Careful with your assertion, there. Most of the urban liberals are actually upper middle class. The crime originates from the lower/lower-middle class, of which there is, inherently, more people in smaller areas in an urban setting. Rural areas also tend to be culturally homogeneous, whereas urban areas are not. So, while both areas can be equally discriminatory, the urban area is faced with more opportunities to expose the discrimination, whereas in a rural area, it would be less likely to be exposed. A rural family can also survive (even thrive) off of a lower net income than an urban area, which changes the comparative quality of life.
In other words, political orientation is by no means the only reason (and I'd argue far from the main reason) why there is higher crime in urban areas.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I sort of understand your point but I disagree. A lot of what you said did not seem relevant or responsive to my assertion about liberals vs conservatives and crime and education.
My first question was why are you talking about discrimination and what does that have to do with either the UN Treaty on children or crime or educational outcomes? How is it responsive to my post?
My second question is why do you think urban liberals are upper middle class? The urban poor vote overwhelmingly liberal and as a group are more likely to vote liberal then the middle class or the wealthy. Or do you think that poor people are too stupid to have a political philosophy? The poor consistently vote for politicians who believe in a collectivist approach to child rearing. And the poor are far more likely to be the ones who allow their children to run out of control and participate in gangs and other criminal behavior.
My third question is what does this have to do with cultural homogeneity. I will observe and probably agree with you that conservatives are much less keen then liberals on the benefits of multiculturalism which we think are rather dubious and tend to lead to balkinized communities and lack of the trust that has been documented to exist in homogeneous communities. but what does that have to do with the UN Treaty or crime or educational outcomes?
Correlation does not mean causation but, it is a very strong hint that there may be causation and certainly causes an inquiring mind to consider further. Conservatives think that they should take responsibility for raising their children and for the most part they take on this responsibility. Part of this responsibility includes guidance, boundaries, parental authority and discipline. This means their kids are less likely to fail in school or run wild in the streets committing crimes. Liberals, and particularly poor liberals, are far more likely to abdicate their parental responsibility and think the state should play a big role in raising their children and when the schools fail in this role as they so often do, they then turn them over to the juvenile justice system which usually fails too.
You originally stated that urban areas are more liberal than rural areas and that crime tends to be lower in rural areas. Your assertion was that the political affiliation differences lead to the differences in crime rates. It's responsive to your post because it was contending with that assertion in your post.
Everything I wrote about are factors for increased crime rate -- multiculturalism, cost of living vs income, higher population density, socio-economic status of those who commit the crimes.
In other words, the too long, didn't read version is: political affiliation is by no means a major factor in the crime rate differences between rural and urban areas.
No, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the UN Treaty, but it is still responsive to a point in your comment.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Everything I wrote about are factors for increased crime rate -- multiculturalism, cost of living vs income, higher population density, socio-economic status of those who commit the crimes.
A little more than a decade ago, New York was one of the most dangerous cities in the USA. It is also one of the most multicultural, densley populated, and has about the highest cost of living in the USA and more than its share of poverty.
Then Rudy Guilliani was elected Mayor and he implemented a conservative approach to law enforcement and the crime rate dropped dramatically. By the time he left office New York was considered one of the safest cities in the country. His approach was emulated in several other cities and they were to varying extents able to drop their crime rates too.
Rudy did not accomplish his crime reduction by reducing New York's rich mosaic of multiculturalism or by reducing the cost of living or by reducing its incredibly high population density or dropping its cost of living or by somehow making the poor rich.
He just took a hard-line, non-tolerant, conservative approach to law enforcement with particular focus on not tolerating the little crimes aka "Broken windows policing".
Political philosophy has a lot to do with crime. Why do you think so many Democrats want to restore the voting franchise to felons? Hint, it is not because they are likely to vote for Republicans. Cities have high crime rates because they are filled with liberals who elect liberals. These same people don't take responsibility for raising their own children and instead abdicate this responsibility to the liberals who are running (poorly) the government.
...Mr. Giuliani is hardly a typical conservative. While he did take a relatively conservative view of law enforcement, he ALSO supplemented his police force by seeking (and getting) a massive grant of federal funds to create thousands of more jobs for police officers (which sounds a lot more like a liberal policy). His administration also saw a dramatic increase in police misconduct, suspect shootings and controversies linked to abuses by the sometimes overzealous police force which was empowered by his support.
In reality, Mr. Giuliani's policies were odd-bird mix of conservative and liberal policies. He was pro-choice, supported vouchers for schools, enacted domestic partner protections for same-sex couples and supported the ability of illegal immigrants to access city services without fear of arrest and deportatation.
In light of all of this, I think it is a little disingenous to credit Mr. Giuliani's sucess to his "conservative" policy decision. I think rather than Mr. Giuliani had a very effective insight into the individual circumstances which existed in his city, and responded as those circumstances required with little real regard to any ideological precept.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
What blackout said. It should also be noted that he also made NYC one, giant weapon-free zone, a very Liberal (and about as anti-conservative as you can get) thing to do.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
"Treaty or not, the children in Saudi Arabia are much more likely to be oppressed by their parents and there are a lot of countries that apparently signed this treaty that are even MORE OPPRESSIVE then even Saudi Arabia. The Treaty is basically meaningless."
I don’t agree that the treaty is meaningless, and if it was, the argument that it would some how threaten American democracy is meaningless. What I think that treaties like this do is bring together people from all over to world to consult on such matters where there is obvious disparity across the globe. The idea is to have an international “think tank” where people will put their heads together and come up with solutions that can be applied globally, and that will protect children while at the same time respecting the variety of cultural value systems.
Many countries belong to various global organizations, which simply show a willingness to cooperate with global initiatives designed to problem solve. For instance, Rwanda is a member of dozens of global organizations. While Rwanda is a developing country, which still faces extreme poverty and a very new and shaky democracy, its participation in such organizations points to the fact that global union is an important strategy for fighting many of the world’s problems.
For, Rwanda:
International organization participation:
ACP, AfDB, AU, CEPGL, COMESA, EAC, EADB, FAO, G-77, IBRD, ICAO, ICRM, IDA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, ILO, IMF, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ISO (correspondent), ITSO, ITU, ITUC, MIGA, MINURCAT, NAM, OIF, OPCW, UN, UNAMID, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UNMIS, UNWTO, UPU, WCL, WCO, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO
Diplomatic representation in the US:
Chief of mission: Ambassador James KOMONYO
Chancery: 1714 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20009
telephone: [1] (202) 232-2882
FAX: [1] (202) 232-4544
Diplomatic representation from the US:
Chief of mission: Ambassador W. Stuart SYMINGTON
embassy: 2657 Avenue de la Gendarmerie, Kigali
mailing address: B. P. 28, Kigali
telephone: [250] 596-400
FAX: [250] 596-591
CIA World Factbook - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rw.html
For Saudi Arabia:
Political pressure groups and leaders:
Ansar Al Marah (supports women's rights)
other: gas companies; religious groups
International organization participation:
ABEDA, AfDB (nonregional member), AFESD, AMF, BIS, FAO, G-20, G-77, GCC, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICRM, IDB, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, IMSO, Interpol, IOC, IPU, ISO, ITSO, ITU, LAS, MIGA, NAM, OAPEC, OAS (observer), OIC, OPCW, OPEC, PCA, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UNRWA, UNWTO, UPU, WCO, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO
Diplomatic representation in the US:
chief of mission: Ambassador Adil al-Ahmad al-JUBAYR
chancery: 601 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037
telephone: [1] (202) 342-3800
FAX: [1] (202) 944-3113
consulate(s) general: Houston, Los Angeles, New York
Diplomatic representation from the US:
chief of mission: Ambassador Ford M. FRAKER
embassy: Collector Road M, Diplomatic Quarter, Riyadh
mailing address: American Embassy, Unit 61307, APO AE 09803-1307; International Mail: P. O. Box 94309, Riyadh 11693
telephone: [966] (1) 488-3800
FAX: [966] (1) 488-7360
consulate(s) general: Dhahran, Jiddah (Jeddah)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html
International diplomacy is extremely important. When a country refuses to get on board with such things, it sends a message of superiority, and unwillingness to work cooperatively with the rest of the world.
i also agree though, that the local governments should be the entities responsible for upholding decisions by such treaties. That's kind of how it works. its not like UN police are going to start raiding homes, but what it would do is set forth policies to be carried out by the nations and states participating in the treaty.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
If you want to look up the guy who was the USA Ambassador to Qatar a couple of years ago you will find my brother-in-law. And my little sister is close friends with the Emir of Qatar and basically ran his stables and was winning endurance 80K and 120k races riding his horses. (That is a very long ride on a horse.)
The stuff you printed from the CIA factbook was interesting but really did not amount to much. Of course we have diplomatic efforts with other parts of the world. In many ways our diplomacy amounts to cultural imperialism as we try to force our values on other cultures. Have you considered the possibility that our forcing of our cultural values on them is one of the reasons they hate us and want to kill us?
Despite signing this treaty and many others like it that purport to deal with human rights there are practices in that part of the world including in Qatar (even though it is among the more enlightened of those countries) and more particularly Saudi Arabia that most of us would recognize as defacto slavery and that women and children, despite the brave words in the treaty, are treated like chattel with only the most minimal rights.
As Blackout points out, our domestic legal system already meets every significant requirement of the Treaty. As I pointed out, we have a perfectly good legal system and we don't need the rest of the world to teach us how to raise children. Why would we feel compelled to sign such a thing when other countries who have signed it just snicker at us through theri robes and hope we sign it and tie ourselves in knots while they ignore the obligations that they never had any intention of complying with when they disingenuously signed the treaty
Disclaimer: My views are distinctly different and uniquely my own from those of my little sister and my brother-in-law. I don't speak for them and I have no idea what their opinion is on this particular topic. .
jackbenimble said,
" In many ways our diplomacy amounts to cultural imperialism as we try to force our values on other cultures. Have you considered the possibility that our forcing of our cultural values on them is one of the reasons they hate us and want to kill us?"
Yes, I have thought about this, and it is partially why I don't believe in the war in Iraq. Signing the treaty would not impact this issue whatsoever though, since we are in the global minority in not signing it. It is not something the US drafted, nor is it something we have pushed on anyone. I call imposing democracy by holding a country hostage cultural imperialism to the extreme.
jackbenimble said,
"The stuff you printed from the CIA factbook was interesting but really did not amount to much. Of course we have diplomatic efforts with other parts of the world." and
"Despite signing this treaty and many others like it that purport to deal with human rights there are practices in that part of the world including in Qatar (even though it is among the more enlightened of those countries) and more particularly Saudi Arabia that most of us would recognize as defacto slavery and that women and children, despite the brave words in the treaty, are treated like chattel with only the most minimal rights."
The stuff I copied from the CIA factbook shows that Saudi Arabia, while it is an essential theocracy held by a monarchy, does indeed have people and groups working on creating a more democratic society. For instance, the information that I shared shows that there is Democratic representation from the US in Saudi Arabia, and in the US from Saudi Arabia. It also shows that there is a group that supports womens' rights in Saudi Arabia, called the Ansar Al Marah.
The US, or any developed country, is effective when it shows support for such groups and individuals. It is possible to support the rights of individuals in countries where we do not necessarily have good relations with their governments, or agree with how their governments are run. This is far more diplomatic that occupying countries and directing the construction of their government into what would make us most happy.
Signing a treaty like the one discussed in this blog would serve to unite the US with the rest of the world in working on coming up with solutions for child abuse across the globe. The more countries and cultures involved, the more general the policies would have to be in consideration of wide disparities in child-rearing practices across cultures. I do not see it as a threat to our own country's culture or Constitution.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Now you are saying:
I do not see it as a threat to our own country's culture or Constitution.
That would imply that this treaty would have no impact on our current laws and the current rights of parents to raise their children as they chose so long as they don't violate their current Constitutional and legal rights (like violently assualting them).
But earlier in this thread you were saying:
I like this treaty, and was just thinking the other day that we need something like this. Too many children are oppressed by parents who refuse to allow their children to participate in activities that are not prescribed by their own belief systems. Too many parents oppress their own children in relationship to religion, education, employment, extra-curricular activities, and even sexual orientation
it was that statement which got me involved in this thread in the first place.
So is this treaty going to change the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit (within the boundaries of existing law) or not?
Regards,
Jack
to this thread in the first place, and for your subsequent responses to me.
Honestly, this thread kept me awake the other night.
Because of your initial response, along with responses from blackout, tolkien3971 and dragaonwolf, I have really thought this through.
That is what is so great about this site, it challenges people to really absorb opposing points of view, and to clarify or adjust their position accordingly.
With that said, I admit that my initial response to this blog was not well thought out, and that I was reacting spontaneously and excitedly about something that I feel very passionately about, which is children and their needs and desires.
After all that has been said in this thread, I can see from the points of view of my opponents who scorn any sort of interference or supervision of the government over their own lives. Ultimately I view myself as a libertarian, but I feel strongly about human rights, such as healthcare, and feel these should be afforded to everyone, so Conservatives think me to inclined toward Socialism.
On the other hand, I feel strongly about human rights to the point of being overzealous about individual liberties, which includes the liberty of children. The political positions that I take in regards to these things confuse people, because they are not always in alignment. I contradict myself constantly, and so I am not surprised, but I just want to acknowledge this fact for the record. I don't adhere to any pre supposed or prescribed school of thought, such as Liberalism or Conservatism.
With all of that said, let me say that since I have had more time to consider the question at hand, I have decided that the best action to take is for the US to sign this treaty and thereby agree to engage in debate regarding Children's Rights across the globe.
At the same time, I cannot agree with legislation that would impose upon families standardized methods of raising children. I believe that we need to afford parents and other care takers of children room to exercise good judgment when it comes to how children are treated.
I do think that teachers, school counselors, teachers, pastors, school nurses and principles need to be further educated regarding child abuse.
I also think that medical treatment should require a child's consent along with the parent's.
I think that children of split families should have more of a say in where they live.
I believe that a child should be able to choose what church he/ she attends.
Affording legal protection for children in these areas does not require a removal of parental rights. It simply requires consideration of the child's perception of his/ her needs in the decision making process. Legal power should remain with the highest authority involved. Proper documentation from that person may allow for individual rights to be overridden in best interest of the child.
Much like how blackout described Mayor Guiliani's role in the city of New York with the following;
"I think rather than Mr. Giuliani had a very effective insight into the individual circumstances which existed in his city, and responded as those circumstances required with little real regard to any ideological precept."
I think this is the extent to which we should give local public officials authority to make judgments about appropriate treatment of children.
The major problem I see with the refusal of the US to sign the treaty in question is the bold stance of an arrogant nation that insists on implanting its own government officials in foreign countries, while standing above global efforts to recognize basic human rights as fundamental to progress.
What I really don't get is that most of the traditional right wing "Conservatives" are the most vocal opposition to both abortion and children's rights. This makes no sense.
"Don't dispose of a zygote because it is made of human genetic material, but you have every right to beat your kid if he misbehaves. Don't let the government tell you what you can't to your very own flesh and blood."
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
I'm not opposed to abortion so I suppose I don't speak for the conservatives who are.
I'm not opposed to rights for children either. I believe they have every right granted under the Constitution just like every other citizen.
I don't think that parents have the right to beat their children but I certainly believe they have the right to administer a controlled and appropriate spanking. And I think that far to many parents don't do this often enough. I also believe parents have very broad authority (and considerable responsibility to the rest of society) to compell their children to behave in certain ways.
inflicted on a child is effective. In fact I think it creates more damage than good. Respecting a person's body is very important, and a fundamental human right. I don't agree with physically forcing anyone to do anything. Doing this repeatedly to a child interferes with their own sense of self and boundaries. It makes it okay for them to exert physical force on others who are smaller or weaker than them. It establishes authority, for certain, but it also conveys the message that they have no free will. With all of that said, I wouldn't care to focus on spanking as something I would want to legally interfere with or end. i understand that American society is undergoing a shift, and I believe these things will soon be self apparent. By giving children choices, albeit very limited ones, we allow them to exert their own free will in a controlled way, while also allowing them to suffer direct consequences from their decisions. This is how critical thinkers are made.
You might find this post relevant, http://progressiveu.org/blog/52073-ethics-should-really-be-taught-school...
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
• Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
This assertion does not appear to be consistent with what the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention makes three statements regarding the punishment of children...
The assertion that this would prevent parents from inflicting "reasonable spankings" would seem to require an unreasonably extreme interpretation of these provisions. When the convention was opposed during the Clinton adminstration, the point of contention was that it would require the U.S. to abolish the death penalty for minors. That is no longer an obstacle, however, since the Supreme Court ruled such punishments unconstitutional in Roper v. Simmons (2005).
• 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.
Chilren in the United States already have this right. The Supreme Court ruled minors do have the same basic civil rights as everyone else in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). There are certain reasonable limitations on the unrestricted expression of the basic rights of minors, because the basic assumption which establishes the age of majority is that minors are not always competent to make decisions about their welfare. Even this restriction can be exempted, however, since any minor who CAN demonstrate the required competence may seek emancipation from his or her parents or guardians.
• Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
Children already have this right in the U.S., too. Parents do have a lot of influence, of course, becaue they CAN make you go to church (for example), but they can't make you believe. And, because of informed consent laws, nothing that they make you do prior to the age of majority is legally binding on you once you become an adult. And again, there is always the option of emancipation if a minor really doesn't want to be subject to the instructions of their parents (and in my opinion, if you aren't willing to take on the full legal responsiblities that go along with emancipation, then you aren't ready to fully exercise the associated freedome, either.)
So in my opinion, I'm not sure why this Convention is so controversial in the U.S., other than the general distaste that many Americans have for agreeing to anyhting that originates in the U.N. (which is something about which I have mixed feelings, myself).
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I think one of the big issues is that of national sovereignty. The UN Treaty is essentially letting/making the UN make laws for us as a country. It's not so much a question of what the Treaty entails, but that it's designed to supersede the US Constitution.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I have never really understood this argument because our Constitution enumerates our ability as a nation to enter into treaties. That doesn't mean that we HAVE to enter into a given treaty if we don't like what it requires us to promise, but to suggest that the very IDEA of treaties is somehow contrary towards or that they "supercede" the Constitution is patently false.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Treaties don't super-cede the Constitution but they effectively become part of it and for most practical purposes, amend it. They carry more weight than an ordinary law. Once ratified and in effect, they prevent Congress from passing a law that would otherwise be Constitutional but which would violate the Treaty.
For example, there was recently a death penalty case in Texas where Texas had sentenced a foreign national to death for some horrendous crime and some World Court was trying to put a stay on Texas carrying out the execution based on some Treaty we had signed. The Federal Government under President Bush sided with the World Court and tried to stop the execution which would have meant a huge erosion of States Rights and Sovereinty guaranteed by the Constitution being stripped away without having been subject to a Constitutional Amendment. Texas won in Court and carried out the Execution but only because Congress had not written a law to implement or "actualize" the Treaty. Congress can now whenever it pleases write such a law and pass it with a simple majority and the Treaty process (2/3rds of the Senate to ratify) will have taken an end-run around the much more stringent Constitutional Amendment (2/3rds of the Congress + 3/4ths of the States to ratify) process.
You may or may not agree with the death penalty and the outcome of this particular case but it should give you some pause when you can consider that the Treaty process can be used as a less carefully checked and balanced alternative to the Constitutional Amendment process and that this opens the door for mischief you may be against in the future. For example most of the members of the UN except a few Western countries (and Europe is fast going Muslim) are probably vehemently opposed to gay marriage. Combine that with a conservative president and a conservative Senate and ...... you get the picture.
A Treaty is primarily a tool of foreign policy and how we deal with other nations. How we raise our children has nothing to do with foreign policy and is fundamentally a domestic issue. There is no good reason for us to enter into Treaties that effectively amend our Constitution and which give non-elected and non-American powers authority over our domestic issues.
Primary sovereignty on this issue should like with the family and particularly the parents. Except for ensuring that their fundamental rights are protected there is very little Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to be involved in how children are raised. In my view this stuff should mainly be handled at the local government level.
To some extent, we and probably more particularly the Europeans are the ones driving this kind of Treaty in the UN and we are trying to get other countries to sign on to these kinds of treaties because we want them to adopt our Western values on things like child rearing. It is probably well intentioned but it is also arrogant and is a form of cultural imperialism that causes the rest of the world to hate us. They don't like being told how to raise their children any better than we do.
Sovereinty guaranteed by the Constitution being stripped away without having been subject to a Constitutional Amendment.
This isn't true on several points. For one, the sovereignty guaranteed by the Constitution is NOT unconditional. When the States joined the Union, they ceded certain aspects of their sovereignty to the Federal Government, the limits of which are defined by the Constitution. The subjection to Treaties was one of those clearly defined limits.
Texas won in Court and carried out the Execution but only because Congress had not written a law to implement or "actualize" the Treaty.
And this demonstrates your fallacy because as you note, "Texas won in Court." The World Court can kvetch and whine all they like, but OUR Supreme Court still has the final say of how the Law is carried out in OUR country.
Congress can now whenever it pleases write such a law and pass it with a simple majority and the Treaty process (2/3rds of the Senate to ratify) will have taken an end-run around the much more stringent Constitutional Amendment (2/3rds of the Congress + 3/4ths of the States to ratify) process.
I would suggest that you are exaggerating the alleged simplicity of such an action, and counter by pointing out that IF Congress did something like this, it would ALSO be a lot easier to repeal that action than it would if a Constituitonal Amendment were involved. If Congress did something as aggregious as you suggest, it would at most stand for the remainder of the single term it would take for the American Voters to "throw the bums out" and elect new representatives to express their will by reversing the Treaty.
As for this particular Treaty, I'm not particularly swayed in either direction because as I noted above, kids in the U.S. already enjoy the basic protections described by the Convention. I just think its odd to refuse to aggree to a Treaty that essentially only asks us to do what we already do. If we can influence other countries to adopt our values to the benefit of the people of other nations (which Americans normally view as a good thing), it seems counter-intuitive to adopt what is sure to be seen as a spitefully uncooperative stance that suggests that we DON'T want the children of other countries to enjoy the same protections that they have in the U.S.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I think it would be a good idea to get a hold of the treaty text and see what it actually details, and go from there.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
...in my initial comment in this chain, above.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
And this demonstrates your fallacy because as you note, "Texas won in Court." The World Court can kvetch and whine all they like, but OUR Supreme Court still has the final say of how the Law is carried out in OUR country.
Yes, Texas did win the case but it does not demonstrate a fallacy because the case COULD have easily gone the other way.
The Supreme Court was not deciding on the basis of whether or not Texas's right to carry out the death penalty is Constitutional. That matter had long since been decided in favor of State Sovereignty. They were weighing on whether or not Texas was violating the Treaty and whether or not the President had the power to force them to comply with it.
The Court could easily could have decided the other way. In these days of 5-4 decisions nobody can be certain what the Court will do and the fact that they were forced into Court to defend a practice that had long been recognized as within the realm of State Sovereignty shows the POTENTIAL power of Treaties to effectively amend the Constitution. The next decision may go the other way.
I would suggest that you are exaggerating the alleged simplicity of such an action, and counter by pointing out that IF Congress did something like this, it would ALSO be a lot easier to repeal that action than it would if a Constituitonal Amendment were involved.
I would suggest that it would be a lot easier to write the law and take away State sovereignty then it would be to repeal it. In the first case, they would be implementing a duly ratified Treaty and Congress has not even the slightest heartburn with writing laws that over-step their Constitutional authority. They do it all the time. If the law was challenged in Court, the Court would likely find the Treaty to be binding and allow the law to stand even if it violated State Sovereignty and they suggested as much in their Texas death penalty decision. In the case of repealing the same law, that would essentially be tantamount to violating a Treaty and as such would be unconstitutional. Congress does what it pleases and often ignores the Constitution and it has violated treaties from time to time. Particulary, Congress has a habit of stepping on free trade treaties and we usually get slapped for it with retaliation. I'm not sure how we would be slapped in this situation. But you can bet the anti-death penalty crowd would be screaming bloody murder.
Here is a link to an article that gives some background:
Supreme Court Sides With Texas in Dispute With Bush Over Mexican's Death Row Case
In these days of 5-4 decisions nobody can be certain what the Court will do and the fact that they were forced into Court to defend a practice that had long been recognized as within the realm of State Sovereignty shows the POTENTIAL power of Treaties to effectively amend the Constitution.
Fair enough, but my point is that the ability to enter into treaties, and the potential impact that such treaties have on our Law is nothing new. It is an enumerated power that has been in our Constitution since the very beginning of our Nation. There's nothing strange or radical about the idea of treaties being adopted into our body of Laws, or in the process by which that takes place.
The Bill of Rights clearly states in the 10th Amendment that...
...but the power to enter into Treaties, and the implications which logically flow from that power ARE delegated specifically to the Federal Government. Thus, the State Sovereignty argument is essentially meaningless in this context.
And again...its not like we have to enter into any given treaty. The extreme scenarios you suggest seem a bit unrealistic to me. The example of the Death Penalty case is a perfect example because of the fact that our Congress didn't agree to the treaty due to its (at the time) conflict with our own body of Laws. It is ridiculous to suggest that the U.S. should NEVER enter ANY Treaties simply because by doing so we would then be bound to abide by whatever it was we agreed (and that sounds like what you are saying).
The only reasonable question here is whether or not entering into any given Treaty advances our interests sufficiently to justify binding ourselves to the agreement. In THIS case, I don't see what we would be giving up, really, since the provisions of the Treaty seem more or less within the confines of our already existing laws.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
The example of the Death Penalty case is a perfect example because of the fact that our Congress didn't agree to the treaty due to its (at the time) conflict with our own body of Laws.
The Congress did ratify this Treaty. I believe it is a fairly famous treaty called the Vienna Convention. It is not a Treaty that I think was particularly inappropriate because if falls within the legitimate realm of foreign policy and among other things protects international travelers including us. I used it as an example of a Treaty effectively modifying the Constitution to counter your point above that Treaties did not super-cede the Constitution.
It was the opinion of the Executive Branch that this ratification gave it the power to force the states to comply. It was the opinion of Texas and eventually the Supreme Court that it did not. The Court said that Congress would need to write a law (which they can do at anytime) to put the Treaty into effect before the Executive Branch would have this power over what used to be State sovereignty.
I am not against all Treaties. I think they have a very legitimate role in our foreign policy. That would include things like international trade, alliances, peace treaties, rules of war, international travel.
But generally, I think the best government is local government. The closer the government is to the people the more responsive it is to them. Things like raising children should mainly be governed by the family, secondarily by the community, and the State and the Federal Government should have very tertiary roles as the final protectors of the child's fundamental safety, health and rights. There is no reason to give a bunch of scumbag dictators who we did not elect and who do not answer to us and who do not even answer to their own people any role or say in how we raise our children. It is a needless expansion of unelected and unresponsive world government that does nothing to make our children or any of the rest of us better off.
And it is an example of our foreign policy arrogance where we try to force our values on other cultures and it makes them hate us and want to blow us up.
Blackout said,
Quote:
• Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
Children already have this right in the U.S., too. Parents do have a lot of influence, of course, becaue they CAN make you go to church (for example), but they can't make you believe.”
Arguing that parents not being to legally force a child to believe something as an example of how children have rights to things like religious freedom is not exactly relevant. No one can make anyone believe anything, not even under torture. They can make us say certain things, but they have no authority over intellect when it is not communicated.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!