Quantcast

Categorized | News, Opinion

The UN CHILD TREATY is BACK! TIME magazine column calls for its ratification by the UNITED STATES!

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.

Spanking for discipline is not “hitting” it is appropriate and Biblical discipline.  And the CRC WILL empower governments to ban spanking and corporal punishment.  Take the Treaty’s word for it:

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.

There is also the usual stuff about how we are the only nation besides Somalia to ratify the CRC.  What all the ratifiers say is in effect:  Don’t worry about it.  It won’t change anything.  It’s bad form not to do it – like a huge zit on our face!  If the law won’t change any, why ratify it in the first place?  Laws have meaning.  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (except for the Bible!) and this treaty undermines it.  State judges must follow it.  The Supreme Court has already interpreted the treaty in such a way to ban life without parole for juveniles.  That is a huge change in the law already.  I can say with certainty there WILL BE abortion on demand if the CRC is passed.  Here’s a disturbing report about Hungary from a pro-life news agency.  Highlights:
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.
Parental rights in the Constitution – of Hungary!  We need it here in the United States.  (Now I will say, I am not sure I would go this far BUT it’s NONE OF OUR BUSINESS what another nation does – as long as it does not affect us.)  But the usual suspects – the anti-American Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch – they call for abortion:

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.”

Note they CITE the CEDAW (Here’s my take on that BAD UN [Oxymoron!] law) and the CRC, too!  Finally, I wonder if this isn’t the real reason the EU is mad at Hungary:
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.”
I tend to agree with Lakatos however I believe we must get our debt situation under control or it, too is a sovereignty killer! Of course if I were the PM of Hungary I’d say to the EU threatening to kick me out:  Don’t throw me in that briar patch, Brer Fox!
We need to again contact our Senator to make clear:  We DON’T WANT another UN TREATY over our lives.  Senator Webb is here and Senator Warner is here.

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)

One Response to “The UN CHILD TREATY is BACK! TIME magazine column calls for its ratification by the UNITED STATES!”

  1. Rightsman says:

    This guy may have been the author of scholarly articles, but this isn’t one if them.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    CommentLuv badge

    Tom White Says:

    Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

    Check out NewsMax!

    Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

    No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
    * = required field

    Submit a Blog Post!

    Submit a Blog Post for our 'Boots on the Ground' feature

    Click Here for Instructions on How to Submit a Post

    Google Ad

    Google Ad

    Follow Us Anywhere!

    Google Ad

    Archives

    Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
    %d bloggers like this: