PDA

View Full Version : Democrats want to erode parent's rights


Cajuncowboy
02-25-2009, 12:32 PM
There really needs to be a revolution and stop these morons!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/

Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights
Sen. Barbara Boxer is pushing the Obama administration to move forward with ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a controversial treaty that has never gained much support in the U.S.

By Joseph Abrams



Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.

The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.

Critics 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.

Nearly every country in the world is party to it -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not -- but the convention has gained little support in the U.S. and never been sent to the Senate for ratification.

That could change soon.

Boxer has made clear her intent to revive the ratification process under the Obama administration, which may be amenable to the move. During a Senate confirmation hearing last month, Boxer said she considers it "a humiliation" that the U.S. is "standing with Somalia" in refusing to become party to the agreement, while 193 other nations have led the way.

The U.S. is already party to two optional pieces of the treaty regarding child soldiers and child prostitution and pornography, but has refused to sign on to the full agreement, something which has rankled members of Congress, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

"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.

The convention has established a Committee on the Rights of the Child, an 18-member panel in Geneva composed of "persons of high moral character" who review the rights of children in nations that are party to the convention.

But legal experts say the convention does nothing to protect human rights abroad -- and that acceding to the convention would erode U.S. sovereignty.

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.

"To the extent that an outside body, a group of unaccountable so-called experts in Switzerland have a say over how children in America should be raised, educated and disciplined -- that is an erosion of American sovereignty," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Parental rights groups are similarly stirred; they see in the U.N. convention a threat that the government will meddle with even the simplest freedoms to raise their children as they see fit.

"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision," said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. "It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes."

Groves said that erosion has already begun, as the Supreme Court has referred to the wide acceptance of the child-rights law in conferring legal protections on minors in the U.S.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion in the 2005 decision banning the death penalty for minors, noted that "every country in the world has ratified [the convention] save for the United States and Somalia."

Proponents of the convention in the U.S. stress that it will help secure human rights abroad.

"Now, all you have to do is look around the world and see these girls that are having acid thrown in their face," Boxer said in January, implying that the U.S. refusal to come aboard has led to abuses elsewhere.

But when acceding to the convention, countries are able to sign so-called RUDs -- reservations, understandings and declarations -- that can hinder or negate responsibilities they would otherwise be bound to follow.

Most majority Muslim nations express reservations on all provisions of the convention that are incompatible with Islamic Sharia law, which takes much of the teeth out of the treaty. Acid attacks on girls continue in Afghanistan, which is already party to the convention.

The U.N. itself admits that there is no way for it to enforce its own laws and protect children.

"When it comes to signatories who violate the convention and/or its optional protocols -- there is no means to oblige states to fulfill their legal obligations," said Giorgia Passarelli, a spokeswoman for the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights, which oversees the child-rights body.

Passarelli said that the committee has kept a constant spotlight on rights violators and fed into decisions made by the Security Council, especially involving child soldiers. But even then, she added, such pressure does not always prevail.

Despite these obstacles, Boxer has made clear that she intends to ramp up pressure to get the treaty ratified, a passion that may be shared by the Obama administration.

During the Oct. 22, 2008, presidential youth debate, Obama promised to "review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

During U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's January confirmation hearing, Rice called the convention "a very important treaty and a noble cause," and said it was "a shame" for the U.S. to be in company with Somalia, which has no real government.

Rice told Boxer that "there can be no doubt that [President Obama] and Secretary Clinton and I share a commitment to the objectives of this treaty and will take it up as an early question," promising to review the treaty "to ensure that the United States is playing and resumes its global leadership role in human rights."

Boxer, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pushed for a 60-day timetable to review the convention and report back to the Senate -- which would have left the Obama administration a March 23 deadline to move toward ratification.

Rice politely sidestepped and refused to agree to the timeline.

"This is a complicated treaty, in many respects more than some others, given our system of federalism, and so we need to take a close look at how we manage the challenges of domestic implementation and what reservations and understandings might be appropriate in the context of ratification," she said.

Boxer's office, which ignored repeated calls and e-mails seeking comment, has not spelled out what if any reservations the senator would like to assert in ratifying the treaty. The State Department also refused to comment on timetables.

trickblue
02-25-2009, 12:39 PM
Children have three basic rights...

A loving family, shelter and a basic education... everything else is a privilege... ;)

JBond
02-25-2009, 12:40 PM
More style over substance. So if every almost every country is part of this deal, how are children being murdered all over the world? I guess the UN is cool with the Asian child sex trade and the chopping up children with machetes in Darfur is great.

The UN is joke.

vta
02-25-2009, 12:42 PM
These people have far too much time on their hands and someone should call them to it. Politicians have no real reason to start interfering in the family structure and concerning themselves with 'Children's Rights'. Politicians are really starting to get way too personal these days.

Conversely, this kind of crap can be mitigated by actually being what your title as a parent implies. Teach your child the fundamentals that have kept you grounded and alert them to the dangers nosy people pose. Most likely they'll laugh at crap like this.

ScipioCowboy
02-25-2009, 12:59 PM
Most disconcerting here is the article's lack of specificity regarding the actual measures imposed by the treaty. What exactly does it entail beyond the amorphous and overly generalized reference to "freedom of thought" for children?

In fact, the article only posits one hard argument in favor of signing the treaty--that Somalia opposes it, and that America shouldn't want to be like Somalia. Hardly convincing, and if it's the only argument Senator Boxer can offer, I think I'll pass.

Bob Sacamano
02-25-2009, 01:03 PM
she must be sterile

tyke1doe
02-25-2009, 01:12 PM
Until the government takes children away from their parents, there's no way this is enforceable.

And I doubt the extreme interpretation of this law (parents not being able to teach their children about religion) is the intent behind the measure. I mean, most countries of the world have a predominant religious culture. The UN can't police the entire world.

I wouldn't worry about certain perceived aspects of this treaty.

DFWJC
02-25-2009, 01:12 PM
I'll be polite and say Ms Boxer is grossly misguided.

vta
02-25-2009, 01:18 PM
she must be sterile

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao:

BrAinPaiNt
02-25-2009, 01:20 PM
she must be sterile

Ice packs if the boxers won't work.

JBond
02-25-2009, 01:21 PM
The UN can't police the entire world.

The UN can't even police the UN.

BrAinPaiNt
02-25-2009, 01:22 PM
The UN can't even police the UN.

Man that is the truth.

ScipioCowboy
02-25-2009, 01:27 PM
The UN can't even police the UN.

Man that is the truth.

It is true that the UN lacks the power to enforce this treaty; however, can you imagine if it did try to enforce it in a place like Coryell County, Texas?
:laugh2:

BrAinPaiNt
02-25-2009, 01:29 PM
It is true that the UN lacks the power to enforce this treaty; however, can you imagine if it did try to enforce it in a place like Coryell County, Texas?
:laugh2:

Only coryell I know is air coryell so I will take your word for it.:D

arglebargle
02-25-2009, 01:30 PM
This is blather. I am pretty sure that the rest of the world that has adopted this treaty still manages to get their kids to do the dishes, or go to their place of worship. Without their every move being orchestrated by the all seeing eye of the Children's Rights Police.

The article was full of upset, but had precious little concrete examples of the actual effects.

ScipioCowboy
02-25-2009, 01:31 PM
Only coryell I know is air coryell so I will take your word for it.:D

Air Coryell was my first thought as well when I moved here. We have a prison--that's about it.:p:

BrAinPaiNt
02-25-2009, 01:32 PM
Air Coryell was my first thought as well when I moved here. We have a prison--that's about it.:p:

Well I guess you can have a pen pal or go visit a stranger if you get too bored.:p:

ScipioCowboy
02-25-2009, 01:33 PM
Well I guess you can have a pen pal or go visit a stranger if you get too bored.:p:

True. However, there's also Bush's Chicken down the street. The eight piece fried chicken liver meal is excellent.

Yeagermeister
02-25-2009, 01:41 PM
I stopped reading after I saw the name Barbara Boxer.

arglebargle
02-25-2009, 01:42 PM
True. However, there's also Bush's Chicken down the street. The eight piece fried chicken liver meal is excellent.

They keep sticking kidneys in our to-go orders. The local place has some problems. Decent chicken though.

Kangaroo
02-25-2009, 02:22 PM
It is true that the UN lacks the power to enforce this treaty; however, can you imagine if it did try to enforce it in a place like Coryell County, Texas?
:laugh2:

LOL no joke my Mom works at Coryell County Hospital

Future
02-25-2009, 02:22 PM
"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision," said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. "It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes."
I can't imagine that any law is going to stop snooping mother's from going into underwear drawers and finding pipes or dimebags or whatever. It is useless for this to even be considered IMO.

peplaw06
02-25-2009, 02:25 PM
Air Coryell was my first thought as well when I moved here. We have a prison--that's about it.:p:

And they got some high powered lights on that thing. When I used to drive through there from Abilene to Waco, I could see the sky lit up in orange 30 minutes before I got to Gatesville.

Vintage
02-25-2009, 02:32 PM
The Somalia thing was thrown in there as faulty logic (well, do we really want to stand with Somalia...?).

But this is equally as faulty, too.


"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision," said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. "It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes."



LOL.

Vintage
02-25-2009, 02:37 PM
Well, if we are going to talk about this, let's go straight to the source.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm


Article 5
States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.



Well... if you trying to take away parents' rights... this is an interesting way to go about it.


Article 9

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.



So... the gov't won't be taking away the children, unless its determined its in the child's best interests (like being abused).


Article 11

1. States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad.


So the illicit trading of children is a bad thing?


Article 32

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.



So.... economic exploitation is bad... and child labor laws are good?


Article 34

States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent: (a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
(c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.

So child porn is a bad thing?


Article 35

States Parties shall take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent the abduction of, the sale of or traffic in children for any purpose or in any form


So... the UN wants to outlaw child trafficking.




Article 37

States Parties shall ensure that: (a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;



This is probably the big one.... as to why the US doesn't want to sign any such agreement.

Phrozen Phil
02-25-2009, 03:11 PM
Well, if we are going to talk about this, let's go straight to the source.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm



Well... if you trying to take away parents' rights... this is an interesting way to go about it.



So... the gov't won't be taking away the children, unless its determined its in the child's best interests (like being abused).



So the illicit trading of children is a bad thing?



So.... economic exploitation is bad... and child labor laws are good?


So child porn is a bad thing?


[/FONT]
So... the UN wants to outlaw child trafficking.



[/FONT]


This is probably the big one.... as to why the US doesn't want to sign any such agreement.







There has been considerable debate up here in Canada about this declaration, but not about the subversion of parental rights. The focus is on how to alleviate child poverty, to protect children from physical abuse and domestic violence, and to ensure that children have access to the basics of life without regard to their creed, colour, or religious beliefs. The article chooses to focus on one narrow potential interpretation and to view it as an assault on parental rights.
My concern is that those previously mentioned issues have yet to be addressed in any effective manner in many parts of the world, and that the declaration has had lip service paid to it, despite it's good intentions. I work in the field of Child Protection and I don't see any erosion of parental rights in my work. The idea that a declaration that protects children from abuse, neglect, expoitation or cruelty is a distortion of the intent and a bit of a red herring.

Vintage
02-25-2009, 03:20 PM
There has been considerable debate up here in Canada about this declaration, but not about the subversion of parental rights. The focus is on how to alleviate child poverty, to protect children from physical abuse and domestic violence, and to ensure that children have access to the basics of life without regard to their creed, colour, or religious beliefs. The article chooses to focus on one narrow potential interpretation and to view it as an assault on parental rights.
My concern is that those previously mentioned issues have yet to be addressed in any effective manner in many parts of the world, and that the declaration has had lip service paid to it, despite it's good intentions. I work in the field of Child Protection and I don't see any erosion of parental rights in my work. The idea that a declaration that protects children from abuse, neglect, expoitation or cruelty is a distortion of the intent and a bit of a red herring.

My point was I fail to see how this is an assault on parental rights, unless someone wants to make the argument that its within a parent's rights to have their children exploited (economically, politically, sexually, etc). If you believe that (not saying you do or anyone else here does), then yes, it is an assault on parents' "rights."

You are right that any such signing of a document is basically paying lip service to it. Its just a symbolic gesture, bec. the UN has no way to enforce such a document. To enforce it, states would have to surrender some sovereignty to an international body (like the UN) and realistically, few, if any states, would do so.

Ultimately nothing would be different if we signed it versus if we choose not to sign it. But I fail to see this as any sort of assault on parents' rights. Or really, on any sort of state sovereignty either (we can always choose to ignore the document we just signed; other states do so).

Phrozen Phil
02-25-2009, 03:39 PM
My point was I fail to see how this is an assault on parental rights, unless someone wants to make the argument that its within a parent's rights to have their children exploited (economically, politically, sexually, etc). If you believe that (not saying you do or anyone else here does), then yes, it is an assault on parents' "rights."

You are right that any such signing of a document is basically paying lip service to it. Its just a symbolic gesture, bec. the UN has no way to enforce such a document. To enforce it, states would have to surrender some sovereignty to an international body (like the UN) and realistically, few, if any states, would do so.

Ultimately nothing would be different if we signed it versus if we choose not to sign it. But I fail to see this as any sort of assault on parents' rights. Or really, on any sort of state sovereignty either (we can always choose to ignore the document we just signed; other states do so).


Your point is well taken. This is a declaration of principles, not a binding manifesto that compells governments. It's up to governments to decide how to deal with the issues. It would b nice to think that governments would want to alleviate conditions that threaten the safety, security, and development of children. As I noted before, we're not seeing massive demonstrations protesting the abrogation of parental rights, because it has not happened.

Cajuncowboy
02-25-2009, 03:44 PM
Some of ya'll aren't getting it. It's the whole slippery slope thing. You begin to allow a government entity to tell a parent what they can or cannot do and where does it stop?

We already have laws against the exploitation of children. You act like we don't want these laws.

It's absurd to think that. You have to draw the line somewhere and raising your children is that line.

We do not need the government telling us how to raise our kids. And a foreign government at that.

This does nothing to prevent any exploitation of children that the laws already don't provide.

What this does is put the government in a position to tell parents what they can and can't do.

ScipioCowboy
02-25-2009, 03:57 PM
So the illicit trading of children is a bad thing?



So.... economic exploitation is bad... and child labor laws are good?


So child porn is a bad thing?


According to the article, the US has agreed with and signed on to select parts of the treaty, namely the ones to which you're alluding:

The U.S. is already party to two optional pieces of the treaty regarding child soldiers and child prostitution and pornography, but has refused to sign on to the full agreement, something which has rankled members of Congress, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The US only takes issues with certain components of the treaty.

BadWolf
02-25-2009, 04:25 PM
she must be sterile

I'm pretty sure with her kind she has to eat the male to fertilize the eggs, that's probably slowing her down. No guy wants to get within biting distance.

Vintage
02-25-2009, 04:26 PM
Some of ya'll aren't getting it. It's the whole slippery slope thing. You begin to allow a government entity to tell a parent what they can or cannot do and where does it stop?

We already have laws against the exploitation of children. You act like we don't want these laws.

It's absurd to think that. You have to draw the line somewhere and raising your children is that line.

We do not need the government telling us how to raise our kids. And a foreign government at that.

This does nothing to prevent any exploitation of children that the laws already don't provide.

What this does is put the government in a position to tell parents what they can and can't do.

I guess what I'd like to know... is where is it that the government is telling parents how to raise their children.

The article states that:


...intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.


But it doesn't really give a specific example of how.

Unless, of course, we consider this as an example:


"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision," said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. "It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes."



...which, I have yet to see pop up in the UN definition of the rights of a child.

Vintage
02-25-2009, 04:29 PM
For those who like to hammer on Bush (and support this UN declaration)

http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/report.pdf


A couple of additional sections were signed under the Bush administration. Give Bush some credit. Similarly, if you like Bush and hate this thing, blame him. Without taking a closer look, I'm not sure which sections he signed.

Vintage
02-25-2009, 04:40 PM
According to the article, the US has agreed with and signed on to select parts of the treaty, namely the ones to which you're alluding:



The US only takes issues with certain components of the treaty.

Thanks for pointing that out (your first paragraph).

These are the ones we take issue with:


(3) the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR-OP1), which is administered by the Human Rights Committee; and
(4) the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty (CCPR-OP2-DP);
(7) the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW-OP);
(8) the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), which is monitored by the Committee against Torture;

Vintage
02-25-2009, 04:42 PM
If I read this right, these were signed under Bush's administration.


(10) the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC-OP-AC) on the involvement of children in armed conflict;
(11) the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC-OP-SC) on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

tyke1doe
02-25-2009, 05:40 PM
The UN can't even police the UN.

:laugh2:

True dat. UN mandate is kind of an oxymoron, especially since it has no enforcement power.

burmafrd
02-25-2009, 08:11 PM
What is a problem besides the question of sovereignty is the possibility of OUR judges starting to use that as ways to force changes HERE. We already had Ginsburg and others starting to use foreign sources on Supreme Court decisions HERE. ANYTHING that gives liberal activist judges more ammo to use is BAD.