Submitted by crinadmin on
The bid to secure ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in the United States has led to a vigorous attempt from 'parental rights' advocates to resist the move. According to Politico, Republican congressman Pete Hoekstra last week introduced a bill in the House to amend the U.S. Constitution to permanently “enshrine” in American society an inviolable set of parents’ rights. The bill had 70 co-sponsors, all Republicans. The bill follows moves from some corners of the Democratic party to accelerate the ratification process. During the presidential campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama replied to a question about the treaty by saying he found it “embarrassing” that the United States stood with Somalia – the only other U.N. member that has not ratified the treaty — and promised to review it as president. In the confirmation hearing for Ambassador Susan Rice, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) asked: “[H]ow can we be proud of our country when we haven't ratified?...This is America...What is happening? What has happened?” Rice replied that it was a “shame” that the United States is one of only two countries that have failed to ratify, adding that “there can be no doubt that the president-elect and Secretary Clinton and I share a commitment to the objectives of this treaty and will take it up as an early question.” A false dichotomy At first glance, the clash is a no-brainer. Why would you oppose something that promotes the protection, participation, health and best interests of children? The motives become more apparent when light is shed on the politics concealed behind 'moral' arguments. Campaigners hope to establish a false division between the rights of parents and the rights of children in order to cultivate irrational fears about a treaty that has been endorsed in every corner of the world for its commitment to the well being of children. Pro-parental control groups worry that parents will lose power over their children, that ratification represents bigger government and less personal sovereignty, and that children's rights reflect liberal rather than conservative values. Furthermore, as Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, notes: “Opposing the U.N has been a rallying cry of the right for decades.” Unfortunately, politics is not only clouding the issue, it also resulting in the widespread distribution of false information that reflects personal beliefs rather the actual provisions contained in the Convention. And it is the well being of children that is at stake. Michael Farris - a conservative Christian and founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association -- said on his Web site parentalrights.org that under the U.N. treaty, 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." Farris, who helped draft Hoekstra's bill, said the treaty is "really about government empowerment" and "has nothing to do ultimately with the rights of children." Firstly, the CRC is not about implementing children's rights instead of parents' rights. The treaty places parents centre-stage in children’s development, and introduces the concept of parental responsibility for their children. It recognises the family “as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children…”, and acknowledges “that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding” (Preamble). Read more Secondly, the UN treaty protects a child's right to be heard, but it is false and misleading to suggest this would mean children could 'seek the review every parental decision with which he or she disagreed'. It is about the right to be heard, not the right to make decisions or take cases against parents – this is clear from the language of the CRC. Lastly, the treaty is not about 'government empowerment'. In fact, ratification of the CRC means that the government will be held to account for their obligations under the Convention by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. There are a number of other myths put forward by those opposing the US ratification of the CRC, all of them without merit, and most of them based on either ignorance or inaccurate propaganda. The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child lists more of such myths, and counters them here More than 190 countries have promised to abide by the Convention without the devastating consequences opponents argue are lurking around the corner. Furthermore, the treaty is supported by groups ranging from the Girl Scouts to the Christian Children’s Fund in the United States; and opponents both overestimate and misunderstand the treaty’s purpose and likely impact. “The Committee on the Rights of the Child has been unfairly characterised as a kind of Big Brother apparatus...but that was not the intent of it,” says Meg Gardinier, chairwoman of the Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ultimately, the losers of any successful political bid to block ratification will be children themselves. [Sources: politico; Medical News Today] Further information
Parents centre stage