Currently, only two countries in the world have not ratified the U.N. Convention On the Rights of the Child: Somalia...and the United States.
Why is this so? And what is so wrong with the Convention?
I took the time (yes, I have nothing else to do) to read the entire Convention, from Preamble to Article 54. The general essence of the Convention is that children (meaning humans under 18) have the same human rights as adults...and then some.
The government is allowed to intervene in a child's life, including taking him away from his parents, if it is in the "best interest of the child." "The best interest of the child" is mentioned over and over again throughout the entire thing, as it is the Convention's "primary consideration."
The Convention does respect the responsibilities, rights, and duties of the parents, family, or community in guiding children in the exercise of their rights. That's a relief.
However, a child can form and voice their own views, if old or mature enough to do so, and their views will be considered depending on their age. Parents are not allowed to control their kids' speech - the government will step in when the speech infringes on other people's rights or is a danger to national security. Basically, their parents, although allowed to "provide direction," are not allowed to prevent their kids from saying whatever they want, access whatever media they want, or complain to courts however they want.
Parents are still responsible to secure their children's proper living conditions, of course, and are allowed to "provide guidance" in most matters, but the government is allowed to interfere if it is "in the best interest of the child."
The wording of the entire Convention is nebulous, allowing for much interpretation (and misinterpretation). As are most laws.
Certain U.S. citizens also claim that it is in conflict with the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings in the past, which do not allow interference in the parent-child relationship. The HSLDA is against it, due to the fact that it may allow the government to disallow homeschooling. The U.S. has a history of refraining from ratifying U.N. resolutions, due to concerns of sovereignty and federalism. Some believe we simply don't need it.
Many international organizations, however, do support the resolution, including World Vision and the International Rescue Committee.
What does everyone else think?
I'm thinking that you are not giving us your view or look on this issue. Therefore, I will proceed to give my own view.
ReplyDeleteI believe, firstly, that the proposed Convention is entirely absurd. Totally. It claims to advocate the best interests of the child, but that would actually be paving the path of destruction for the child. The child will be allowed to exercise and execute any decision or choice he/she would like, without parental restriction. Thus, if the child would like to smoke, take drugs and not go to school, the parents won't be able to lift a finger.
Also, children know little and will make their choices based on that knowledge (which could be detrimental).
Further more, the HSLDA is not just concerned that the government may take away homeschooling rights--they are also concerned for the welfare of the child.
It is true that if the Convention is in conflict with the Constitution, international law states that the treaty will override our Constitution. That will set up a huge constitutionality argument. In other words, if we let this treaty override our Constitution, how and where will we draw the line in which Constitution must be followed?
The above is my viewpoint. Offer any counter-arguments, and I'll be happy to rebut them.
~Harvey
Yeah...I was in a rush (was about to watch a movie with my family), so I didn't write down my own opinion. I just wrote down my compiled research/synopsis.
ReplyDeleteThe Convention is not stating that the children can do anything they want - they can do anything they want as long as it's not illegal. Parents and/or legal guardians are given first responsibility to shape and "direct" their children. (exactly what that may mean is up to the courts.)
The Convention does state that children will be taken seriously (or not seriously) depending on their age and maturity. So it's not completely do-whatever-you-want.
HSLDA may or may not have concerns for children's welfare (I'm quite sure they do have such concerns, but that is besides the point). I was merely mentioning them to point out their views on what the Convention may do to homeschooling.
I agree with your last point, which is probably the main reason why the U.S. has not ratified this. It may be interesting to note that, on an unrelated point, three of the articles in the Convention come directly from our U.S. Constitution.
I, like you, do not approve of this Convention either, but I believe that many in the conservative camp (whether religiously or politically) paint it out to be more drastic than it really is. I wrote this post simply as an informative, to let people know what is actually in the Convention, before they start arguing against it.
"in the best interest of the child."
ReplyDeleteSo that means that if the child wants something reasonable from the government, the government should grant it to the child, regardless of what the parents say?
I don't think kids should be given too much power. They are, after all, children and are largely dependent on adults. Even teenagers (myself included) who think they are ready to be independent and take on responsibility can be overconfident, immature, or prideful.
Pretty much. As long as it's within the law, reasonable, and in the best interest of the child (meaning that it will benefit the child). Again, these words are extremely vague, as most laws are, to allow for interpretation. That's what I think makes the Convention so dangerous.
ReplyDeleteAlso, keep in mind that this Convention was created mainly to protect children from unreasonable, abusive, or otherwise incompetent parents (mainly in third-world countries, where morals are a bit more skewed).
"Also, keep in mind that this Convention was created mainly to protect children from unreasonable, abusive, or otherwise incompetent parents"
ReplyDeleteHow would you define 'unreasonable, abusive, or incompetent' parents? Who will be defining? If it's the children, then a child may easily exaggerate. If this convention is ratified, then parents will have to be careful to always allow their children to do what they want, refrain from giving out punishment and always be 'supportive' or perfect in the eyes of their child, less they be labeled as 'unreasonable, abusive, or otherwise incompetent parents' by their own children.
Do you see my point? As one of the commentators said, children can't really be trusted to make their own decisions, without guidance or advice from their direct authority, the parents.
Also, what is the percentage of parents in the United States that are 'unreasonable, abusive, or otherwise incompetent parents'? What is the percentage in the world? Even if the percentage could be calculated, we shouldn't allow this same treatment to be given to every family in the world. Do you wish to have the ability to say no to your parents and do what you will? If yes, then will you have that same mindset twenty to thirty years down the road, when you're married and have children of your own?
If you factor all this in, we can see that this Convention will only harm this and future generations
~Harvey
Isn't it interesting that the only other group of people who have the common sense to not sign this bill are a bunch of pirates?
ReplyDelete-Ray Zhang
@Harvey
ReplyDeleteI think sometimes those who are against this bill go a bit too far in the applications of this. The government decides on the definition, taking into account the child's testimony, according to the age and maturity of the child. So it's not that what a child says goes. And those judging are adults.
Parents are free to give "guidance and advice," as you say, according to this bill. In fact, they're encouraged and almost commanded to do so.
It's the percentage thing that has the U.S. against the bill. The U.S. probably has the lowest percentage of "unreasonable" or "abusive" parents - the percentage is much higher in other countries. So, in America's own self-interest and national pride, the U.S. will not sign it.
@Ray
You have a good point... lolz. See my last paragraph above.