Henry Luce will surely blow a gasket in heaven (if that is possible!) at this news story in his own magazine: Time. The one the anti-Communist Whittaker Chambers used to write for. This column in Time in 2012 calls for the US to ratify the UN Child Treaty. Yes the sovereignty killing, parental rights destroying Child Treaty. That one!
The usual stuff is given to the American People:
The opposition is primarily based on fears of U.N. interference in U.S. laws and families. The biggest worry appears to be that the treaty will undermine parental rights even though the Convention explicitly grants responsibilities and protections to parents and guardians. One of the alarms raised by ParentalRights.org, an organization that supports a parental-rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is that the Convention will prevent parents from spanking their children or opting them out of sex education. We won’t go into why some people cling so tenaciously to their “right” to hit children. But the Convention does not require us to choose between the rights of children and the rights of parents — it protects both.
1. No spanking:
Look at Article 19, section 1:
States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
“All forms of physical or mental violence” could include reasonable corporal punishment which is recognized in Virginia Law as a parental right.
So, we’ll try again; here’s Time:
Parentalrights.org also objects to the idea that children should have the right to choose their own religion, as well as freedom of thought and expression. But isn’t religion always a matter of one’s own conscience, no matter what age? With or without a treaty, effective parenting means not forcing anything onto children — be it religion, sexual orientation or green beans. Authoritarian parenting erodes the internal decision-making capacity of a child and erodes closeness between parent and child.
This kind of thing is exactly why the CRC should not be ratified. Children are indeed immature. They need the guidance of parents to assist them in decision-making. That includes as Time puts it: “religion, sexual orientation or green beans.” I know I do not want a treaty, enforced by judges, bureaucrats and foreigners to decide that.
Here’s more of my analysis on this bad UN (My regular readers know what that is! REDUNDANT!) treaty:
3. Mandatory sex-ed and birth control (not to mention abortion rights) OVER THE OBJECTION of parents:
Article 16 will forever enshrine in our law the right of a minor to get an abortion or birth control without any parental objection allowed. Forget ever overruling Roe v. Wade.
Don’t take my word for it – read article 16:
No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.
The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. (emphasis added)
That also prevents stopping bad boyfriends or searching rooms, too.
4. Choose their own religion?
Look at Article 14:
States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. (emphasis added)
Parentalrights.org reports that Scotland in fact told their parents exactly that.
The new law says … “Embryonic and foetal life shall be entitled to protection and respect from the moment of conception,” and the state should encourage “homely circumstances” for child care. It obliges the media to respect marriage and parenting and assigns parents, rather than the State, primary responsibility for protecting the rights of the child. The law enumerates responsibilities for minors, including respect and care for elderly parents.
Amnesty International said the article protecting life from conception could “undermine the rights of women and girls” that are “enshrined in several treaties signed and ratified by the Republic of Hungary such as the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).”
Human Rights Watch likewise invoked UN human rights treaties in a letter urging Hungary’s president to “amend the constitution to ensure respect for women’s reproductive rights.”
Former US ambassador to Hungary Mark Palmer said the expulsion of Hungary from the EU is “now no longer unthinkable,” but Hungarian analyst Julia Lakatos downplayed the controversy, telling CSMonitor, “Much of the criticism from abroad is exaggerated.”
About Elwood Sanders
Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)
- Web |
- More Posts (2762)
This guy may have been the author of scholarly articles, but this isn’t one if them.