Global progress towards banning all corporal punishment of children

- Image by HA! Designs – Artbyheather via Flickr
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/global.html
From End Corporal Punishment official web site. In the following text the hypertext links, italicized, are deactivated. Please visit the web site.
Legal reforms to prohibit all corporal punishment of children – in the family home as well as in schools and other institutions and penal systems – are spreading fast.
In many states the law provides defences for parents, other carers and teachers who use corporal punishment to discipline children: provisions which allow “reasonable chastisement” or “lawful correction”. In addition there may be education laws providing for corporal punishment in schools and laws allowing corporal punishment in penal institutions and as a sentence of the courts.
Law reform to end corporal punishment involves removing any provisions authorising corporal punishment and removing any special defences that may exist, so that the criminal law on assault applies equally to any assault of a child, whether or not it is described as discipline. It is a fundamental principle of human rights – upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 7 and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 26 – that all are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination.
In some states the law is silent on corporal punishment of children, but nevertheless it is socially and legally accepted and therefore explicit prohibition is required.
Click (active link at the web site) for the latest summary information on progress towards universal prohibition, and selected facts and figures on states pursuing reform and states so far resisting.
Click (active link at the web site) for information of legislation in states which have achieved full prohibition.
Worldwide, corporal punishment in schools has been prohibited in at least 108 states. But at least 78 states have not prohibited corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions for children in conflict with the law, and 43 have not prohibited it as a judicial sentence of the courts for young people convicted of an offence.
Our online global table shows data for all states and dependent territories on the extent of prohibition in three categories: Home; School; Penal system. Listed alphabetically, select from below
: TABLE A-D | TABLE E-H | TABLE I-L | TABLE M-P | TABLE Q-T | TABLE U-Z (active links at the web site)
Also available from the table are individual reports for each state, with details of laws relating to corporal punishment in the home, schools, penal system and alternative care settings, as well as summaries of prevalence research and extracts from recommendations made by human rights treaty bodies. Click here for individual state reports.
Our global and regional tables, available as PDF files (updated August 2009), summarise the extent of prohibition in the home, schools, as a sentence for crime, as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions, and in alternative care settings. Download from here:
[Please visit the web site for latest data]
This analysis has been compiled from information from governmental and non-governmental sources, including reports on implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every effort is made to maintain its accuracy. Please send us updating information and details of sources for missing information: info@endcorporalpunishment.org.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Sask. children’s advocate adds support to anti-spanking bill (cbc.ca)
- Spanking Hurts Kids’ IQ (abcnews.go.com)
- Corporal Punishment in U.S. Schools (time.com)
- UN agency adopted a new general comment in 2006 on corporal punishment (endhereditaryreligion.com)
UN agency adopted a new general comment in 2006 on corporal punishment

- Image via Wikipedia
In 2006 the Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted a new General Comment on the issue of corporal punishment
The Committee’s General Comment on Corporal Punishment
At its 42nd session, held in Geneva from 15 May to 2 June 2006, the Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted a new General Comment on the issue of corporal punishment. This is the first General Comment concerning the protection of children from all forms of violence which the Committee resolved to publish following its Days of General Discussion on violence against children in 2000 and 2001. It reflects the Committee’s commitment to address the problem of corporal punishment, which dates back to the early days of monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and which has consistently informed the Committee’s recommendations to States parties over the years.
General Comment No.8 (2006) on “The right to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment (arts. 19; 28, para. 2; and 37, inter alia)” aims “to highlight the obligation of all States parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children and to outline the legislative and other awareness-raising and educational measures that States must take” (para 2). As well as being an obligation of States parties under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, addressing and eliminating corporal punishment of children is “a key strategy for reducing and preventing all forms of violence in societies” (para 3).
Definitions
The Committee defines corporal punishment in paragraph 11 of the General Comment:“The Committee defines ‘corporal’ or ‘physical’ punishment as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. Most involves hitting (‘smacking’, ‘slapping’, ‘spanking’) children, with the hand or with an implement – whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden spoon, etc. But it can also involve, for example, kicking, shaking or throwing children, scratching, pinching, burning, scalding or forced ingestion (for example, washing children’s mouths out with soap or forcing them to swallow hot spices). In the view of the Committee, corporal punishment is invariably degrading. In addition, there are other non-physical forms of punishment which are also cruel and degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention. These include, for example, punishment which belittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares or ridicules the child.”
Children are subjected to such punishment in all settings and must be addressed and eliminated in all settings, including within the home and family.
The Committee distinguishes between violence and humiliation as forms of punishment, which it rejects, and discipline of children in the form of “necessary guidance and direction”, which is essential for healthy growth of children. The Committee also differentiates between punitive physical actions against children and physical interventions aimed at protecting children from harm.
Human rights standardsThe foundations of the human rights obligation to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other degrading forms of punishment lie in the rights of every person to respect for his/her dignity and physical integrity and to equal protection under the law. The Committee traces this back to the original International Bill of Human Rights – “The dignity of each and every individual is the fundamental guiding principle of international human rights law” (para 16) – and shows how the Convention on the Rights of the Child builds on these principles. Quoting article 19 of the Convention, which requires States to protect children “from all forms of physical or mental violence”, the Committee states (para 18):
“… There is no ambiguity: ‘all forms of physical or mental violence’ does not leave room for any level of legalized violence against children. Corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment are forms of violence and the State must take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to eliminate them.”
The fact that article 19 and article 28 – on school discipline – do not specifically refer to corporal punishment does not in any way undermine the obligation to prohibit and eliminate it (paras 20, 21 and 22):
“… the Convention, like all human rights instruments, must be regarded as a living instrument, whose interpretation develops over time. In the 17 years since the Convention was adopted, the prevalence of corporal punishment of children in their homes, schools and other institutions has become more visible, through the reporting process under the Convention and through research and advocacy by, among others, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
“Once visible, it is clear that the practice directly conflicts with the equal and inalienable rights of children to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. The distinct nature of children, their initial dependent and developmental state, their unique human potential as well as their vulnerability, all demand the need for more, rather than less, legal and other protection from all forms of violence.
“The Committee emphasizes that eliminating violent and humiliating punishment of children, through law reform and other necessary measures, is n immediate and unqualified obligation of States parties….”
The Committee goes on to note that this approach is mirrored in the work of other international human rights treaty monitoring bodies and of regional human rights mechanisms, including the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.Common arguments by governments against prohibition of all corporal punishment are also addressed by the Committee. For example, in response to the contention that a certain degree of “reasonable” or “moderate” corporal punishment is in the “best interests” of the child, the Committee states that “interpretation of a child’s best interests must be consistent with the whole Convention, including the obligation to protect children from all forms of violence and the requirement to give due weight to the child’s views; it cannot be used to justify practices, including corporal punishment and other forms of cruel or degrading punishment, which conflict with the child’s human dignity and right to physical integrity” (para 26). And there is no conflict between realising children’s rights and the importance of the family unit, which the Convention fully upholds. The Committee recognises that some justify the use of corporal punishment through religious faith teachings and texts but again notes that “practice of a religion or belief must be consistent with respect for others’ human dignity and physical integrity” and that “[f]reedom to practice one’s religion or belief may be legitimately limited in order to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” (para 29).
You can continue reading the comments here:
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/hrlaw/crc_session.html
Click the Wiki link below the map of Europe to see the latest data.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Innaiah Narisetti (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Children have the right to information (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Abuses Against Children Persist Despite Rights Convention (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- BILL S-207 and the UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Children (endhereditaryreligion.com)
Abuses Against Children Persist Despite Rights Convention

- Image by talkradionews via Flickr
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-08-voa53.cfm
VOANews.com
By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
08 October 2009Child rights advocates have kicked off more than a month of global activities leading up to the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention, which was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on November 20, 1989, is the most widely ratified international human rights treaty. Every country in the world, except the United States and Somalia, has ratified it.
Before the Convention on the Rights of the Child came into force in 1989, most of the world thought children should be seen and not heard. Now, 20 years later, some of their voices are being heard, but their rights continue to be violated.
“I believe every child has the right to feel safe, protected from armed conflict, abuse, child labor, trafficking, exploitation. It is really very simple. No child should have to suffer at the hands of others. Not one,” says UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, Hollywood actress, Mia Farrow, who has been fighting for the rights of children for years.
Senator Barbara Boxer and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving to accomplish US Senate ratification of the UN CRC. Political analysts say there are votes in the Senate to accomplish ratification, but it may be a tough battle given the unmitigated opposition by fringe partisans who seemingly speak for the Republican party these days. The preposterous lies and distortions they are spreading about the convention are beyond the pale.
Ratification is merely the first step. The difficult challenge will come when state and federal laws will have to be adapted to the requirements of the convention. One obstacle is the prohibition of executing minors which is legal in Texas. Corporal punishment is still legal in 20 states even though there is consensus by child development experts that this reprehensible practice is counter productive. Over 60 nations have made it a crime to strike a child. We must govern ourselves by reason not dogma.
The UN CRC is not just about child soldiers in Africa or elsewhere, or the trafficking of children for illicit purposes. Approximately 9,000,000 American children suffered abuse or neglect in a recent year where data is available.
The Republican religious fringe must not be permitted to seize control of our national debate like they did with health care reform. Shout them down and shut them up, they have no legitimate standing.
For example:
“Folks, this is scary stuff! Big Brother (Governments) want to take over our rights as parents and have children tell us what to do! The devil loves to twist around the natural order that Almighty God has made, we are in dark times!”
– Deacon John
Quoted from the web site: http://deaconforlife.blogspot.com/2009/06/childs-rights-forces-mobilize.html
Related articles by Zemanta
- Children’s Bill of Religious Rights (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Children have the right to information (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Parents’ Rights Amendment Reaches 120 Co-Sponsors (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
- BILL S-207 and the UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Children (endhereditaryreligion.com)

- Image via Wikipedia
BILL S-207 and the UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Children:
Submission to Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights
Summary
The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children urges the honourable members of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights to ensure that Canada’s international and domestic human rights obligations are brought to bear in its review of Bill S-207. In particular, the Coalition draws attention to the findings of the recent UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Children, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the committee’s own review
of Canada’s obligations with regard to the rights of children. If these are taken into consideration, it would be difficult to find other than support for Bill S-207 and move forward to ensure that Canada’s Criminal Code protects all Canadian citizens – including its youngest, smallest and most vulnerable – from all forms of violence.
Violence in its myriad forms is universally condemned under international human rights law. But corporal punishment is a form of violence that persists in the everyday lives of children worldwide. In some States, it is a sanctioned practice by government agencies and bodies (e.g., in education, justice and child welfare systems). In others, it is permitted by legislation and persists in families.
The UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Children recognizes corporal punishment as a form of violence, and asserts that violence against children administered as “discipline” or “correction” must cease to be condoned, authorized or regulated in domestic law if States are to uphold their human rights obligations.
The key messages of the Study, which are reflected in the recommendations, are:
(a) No violence against children is justifiable. Children should never receive less protection than adults.
(b) All violence against children is preventable. States must build a protective legislative environment and invest in evidence-based policies and programs to address factors that give rise to violence against children.
(c) States have the primary responsibility to uphold children’s rights to protection and access to services, and to support families’ capacity to provide children with care in a safe environment.
(d) States have the obligation to ensure accountability in every case of violence.
(e) The vulnerability of children to violence is linked to their age and evolving capacity.
(f) Children have the right to express their views, and to have these views taken into account in the implementation of policies and programs.
“The Study should mark a turning point – an end to adult justification of violence against children, whether accepted as “tradition” or disguised as “discipline”.
Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Independent Expert, UN Secretary General’s Study on Violence Against Children
The Responsibility of the State to Protect Children from All Violence
The UN Secretary General’s Study on Violence against Children is the product of a consultative process involving nine regional consultations (one hosted by the Government of Canada in 2005), responses to a government questionnaire submitted directly to the Independent Expert, public submissions, a series of 14 expert thematic meetings on various aspects of the issue, consultation with the Inter-agency Group on Violence against Children, consultation with children, and guidance from an editorial board. In Canada alone, close to 100 organizations representing multidisciplinary perspectives and more than 300 young people participated in the Study process. This formidable and broad process of consultation ensured that the recommendations of the Study are firmly anchored in the reality of children’s lives in every society, and in the current research.
The Study finds that some forms of violence, such as sexual exploitation and the impact of armed conflict on children, have provoked international condemnation and strong legislative and programmatic responses. However, some forms of violence in the home, schools, institutions and communities are largely ignored – or actually sanctioned – by governments.
The Study identifies corporal punishment as one of the most prevalent forms of violence faced by children in virtually every society ─ affluent and developing. It recognizes that family units are the best providers of physical and emotional care and protection for children. But governments have the responsibility to build a solid protective legal framework that respects the rights of children. Violence thrives in the absence of respect for human rights. Violence against children will persist where laws persist that confer on adults the right to use violence in the treatment of children. State responsibility to protect, respect and fulfil the rights of children extends beyond its direct activities and those of State agents; it requires the adoption of measures to ensure that parents, legal guardians and others do not violate children’s rights. States are obliged to put in place a framework of laws, policies and programmes to prevent violence.
The Study calls for the universal prohibition of all corporal punishment and other forms of cruel or degrading punishment in all settings, including schools and homes, setting a target date of 2009.
The findings of the global study were supported in the recent report of this committee, entitled Children: The Silenced Citizens: Effective Implementation of Canada’s International Obligations with Respect to the Rights of Children. It recognizes the gravity of the issue of violence against children in Canada and makes cogent recommendations to address it through legislative and educative means. Recommendation 2, among other things, calls for repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code. Recommendation 5 calls on the federal government to respond to the UN Study on Violence Against Children and inform the international community, Parliament, and the Canadian public how it is responding to issues of violence against children and how it intends to improve upon policies to bring Canada into compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Recommendation 19 calls on the federal government to “immediately implement and comply with its obligations” under the CRC.
Support for Bill S-207 is consistent with both global and national findings on the role of governments in protecting children from all forms of violence. A Foundation in Children’s Human Rights The UN Study draws on international human rights frameworks to conclude that corporal punishment of children breaches their fundamental rights to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. Legally permitted corporal punishment also abrogates their right to equal protection under the law. These rights are upheld for everyone – including children – in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which forms a universal framework for addressing violence against children, requires states to protect children from “all forms of physical or mental violence” while in the care of parents or others (Article 19). It requires discipline in schools to “be administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity” (Article 28). Children must never be subjected to “degrading treatment or punishment” (Article 37). The Convention on 3
the Rights of the Child (Article 3) requires that the child’s best interest be a primary consideration in all matters affecting the child. A vast body of research findings clearly establish that corporal punishment is never in the child’s best interest; rather it is a consistently identified risk factor for child abuse and for perpetuating violence.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child consistently interprets the Convention as requiring prohibition in law of all corporal punishment in the family, schools, all forms of alternative care and juvenile justice settings, together with awareness-raising and public education. The legislative prohibition of corporal punishment is recommended as an educative and deterrent means of reducing violence against children. In June 2006, the Committee adopted General Comment No. 8 on the rights of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment. In it, the Committee underlines that “eliminating violent and humiliating punishment of children, through law reform and other necessary measures, is an immediate and unqualified obligation of States parties.”
Furthermore, the Outcome Document of the 2002 UN General Assembly Special Session on Children encouraged all States “to adopt and enforce laws, and improve the implementation of policies and programmes to protect children from all forms of violence, neglect, abuse and exploitation, whether at home, in school or other institutions, in the workplace, or in the community”. “How can we expect children to take human rights seriously and help build a culture of human rights while we
adults not only persist in slapping, spanking, smacking and beating them, but actually defend doing so as being ‘for their own good’? Smacking children is not just a lesson in bad behaviour, it is a potent demonstration of contempt for the human rights of smaller, weaker people.”
Thomas Hammarberg, Human Rights Commissioner, Council of Europe: Issue Paper 2006/01.
Implementation of the Study and its Recommendations “When parents do so much [physical violence], kids will end up being violent” Youth consulted for Seen, Heard & Believed: What Youth Say about Violence, 2006 (UNICEF Canada, Cape Breton University Centre for Children’s Rights, Canadian Council of Provincial Child and Youth Advocates, Save the Children Canada). Adoption of Bill S-207 is consistent with Canada’s support for the UN Study and plans for follow-up. The Study Report calls for implementation of 12 overarching recommendations (see Appendix), complemented by additional recommendations which are specific to each of the settings of home and family, educational settings, institutions for care or detention, the workplace and the community. (More information on these can be found in the full document available at www.violencestudy.org) In particular, the time frame refers to these being integrated into national planning processes by 2007. Prohibiting violence against children by law and initiating a process to develop reliable national data collection systems should be achieved by 2009. States should provide information on implementation of these recommendations in their reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Canada’s next report is scheduled for
January 2009.
Following the presentation of the Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Children to the General Assembly in October 2006, the Resolution on the Rights of the Child adopted by the Third Committee of the Assembly (A/C.3/61/L.16) encourages Member States and requests United Nations entities, regional organisations and civil society, including non-governmental organisations, to widely disseminate and follow up on the Study. The resolution calls on relevant organisations of the United Nations system (19) “to explore ways and means, within their respective mandates, by which they can contribute more effectively to address the need to prevent and to respond to all forms of violence against children.” The resolution also requests the Independent Expert to promote the initial phase of follow-up. During 2007, the Independent Expert will call upon Governments, UN organisations, regional organisations, national institutions, civil society, and other partners to provide inputs to a progress report he will prepare for the 2007 General Assembly.
4
Canada adopted the Violence Study by resolution at the UN General Assembly in November 2006. In a letter to the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, dated March 23, 2007, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter MacKay, stated that “The Canadian government welcomes the recommendations contained in the Study…Violence against girls, boys, and adolescents contravenes their most basic human rights and the impact on their development is enormously detrimental.”
Canada has emphasized the importance it places on human rights standards, and pledged to uphold and promote them. But the persisting legality of corporal punishment of children by parents, through s. 43 of the Criminal Code, is inconsistent with the human rights standards Canada has accepted and ratified. It is no more possible to define some level of “reasonable” or “justifiable” violence against children than against adults. In previous centuries, many states’ laws permitted and thus condoned physical chastisement of wives, slaves, servants and apprentices, but societies have moved on to adopt clear international human rights standards. It is unthinkable that legislation on violence against women, or violence against older people, would exclude condemnation of the most common form of violence against them, within the family or elsewhere.
By prohibiting corporal punishment, states are prohibiting not just a particular category of violence, but the idea that some arbitrary degree of violence against children should, uniquely, be legal and socially approved. This is fundamental to asserting children’s status as individual people and rights-holders, just as challenging men’s violence against women in the home has been a vital part of the struggle for women’s rights.The pace of legal reform is rapidly gaining momentum. Since Sweden became the first state to explicitly prohibit all corporal punishment of children in all settings in 1979, 17 states have since enacted legal prohibition. Another 23 states
have legislation in preparation or have committed themselves to legal reform towards full prohibition, including in the home.
Corporal punishment is prohibited in all schools in 102 States; in penal systems (both as a sentence and as a disciplinary measure in institutions for juvenile detention) in 104 States; and in all alternative care settings in 28 States. But at least 92 States have yet to introduce legislation explicitly prohibiting corporal punishment in all schools; at least 80 have yet to prohibit it as a disciplinary measure in institutions for juvenile detention. And in at least 40 children can still be sentenced to whipping, caning or flogging as a sentence for crime. “Many citizens and politicians express deep concern about increasing violence in their societies. The credibility of this concern is questionable as long as they are not willing to seriously and systematically address the use of violence against children. And nobody should suggest that a little bit of violence is acceptable. That applies equally for adults and children.” Jaap E. Doek, Chairperson, United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2001-2007
“Adults need to set a better example for kids” Youth consulted for Seen, Heard & Believed: What Youth Say about Violence, 2006 (UNICEF Canada, Cape Breton University Centre for Children’s Rights, Canadian Council of Provincial Child and Youth Advocates, Save the Children Canada For Further Information, Contact: Kathy Vandergrift, Chair Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children 613-820-0272 kathyvandergrift@rogers.com
Children have the right to information

- Image by Emmanuel Frezzotti via Flickr
Childhood
The following introduction is to a paper that was written following an international meeting of librarians held to discuss the impact of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child.
The idea that children have rights is of relatively recent origin and related to the concept of childhood and the notion of a child. `The question: What is a child? is one answered by adults. Adults impose their conceptions of childishness on beings they consider to be children. There have been different conceptions of the nature of childhood at different periods of history. Childhood is a social construct, a man-made phenomenon.’(3)
In general, children have been silenced in history because they have an insignificant position in social life. In a world, which is dominated by the interests of adults, who also have the power to define, children are considered to become autonomous, not to be autonomous.
Children have human rights, and they do not have to deserve them, they do not need to be given rights.(4) `The fact that children are not yet grown up is used as an excuse by parents, social workers, teachers, judges and many other adults to follow their own interpretation of the child’s interest and to set demands and make decisions that may have far-reaching consequences for children which no one can foresee. (…) Why are adults, who are in a much stronger position in many respects, so afraid to take children seriously and to grant them a large degree of autonomy?’ (5)
The child has to be regarded as an individual with rights of his own as a human being. Due to his situation, he also needs rights for protection and to guarantee access to services. Legal protection includes having rights and being informed about them; having the possibility to exercise these rights effectively; protecting one’s interests; and, eventually being able to enforce these rights.
Convention on the Rights of the Child
During the International Year of the Child, 1979, an Open-Ended Working Group was set up on the Question of a Convention on the Rights of the Child. The drafting process took ten years and ended in a UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted unanimously on 20 November 1989.(6). All states in the world (191) have ratified the Convention with the exception of the USA and Somalia. So one can really speak of an international standard.
The right to self-determination stating that children have the right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them, and must be heard in any judicial and administrative proceeding affecting them (article 12) is crucial, as it contains a general principle characteristic of the underlying approach of the Convention: `that children are not only objects but also subjects of rights, and that a determination of the child’s best interests should be based not only on what adults think, but also on what the child thinks.’(7)
Evidence is given that in the field of children’s rights there are not only obligations for the state, parents and other adults, but also possibilities, and opportunities for children to participate in daily life and at least have a say in their own lives. This points to a child’s right to information, which will be considered in more detail.
To continue reading the rest of this article:
http://www.ifla.org.sg/IV/ifla64/042-113e.htm
For supporters of ratification:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2255835030
http://childrightscampaign.org/crcindex.php
For ratification arguments (rebuttals to ParentalRights.org propaganda)
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fnB158
For more on the general subject of children’s rights:
http://www.amazon.com/Children-Equals-Exploring-Rights-Child/dp/076182300X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Related articles by Zemanta
- Children’s Bill of Religious Rights (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- ‘Child’s Rights’ Forces Mobilize (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
The Philosophy of Childhood
Too many parents believe they own their children and can do anything they wish with them. Among Christian nationalist zealots this idea is extremely common and they make all kinds of unsubstantiated claims to justify their ownership of their children. The roots of their oftentimes belligerant attitude go all the way back to Greek philosophers. What of the rights of children? The following is published at the end of an encyclopedia entry in the Stanford Enclyclopedia of Philosophy. As the article points out the philosophy of childhood is a new academic field.
Aristotle regarded children as property of the father. On the ground that there can be no injustice “in the unqualified sense” towards what is one’s own, he reasoned that a father cannot be unjust to his own child. Until children reach their majority, according to Aristotle, they, like their father’s chattel, are, as it were, “part of himself,” and, since “no one chooses to hurt himself,” there can be “no injustice towards oneself” and hence no injustice committed by father toward a child. (Nicomachean Ethics 5.6, 1134b8-12) With our present-day awareness of child abuse, we may find these words hard to take seriously. Yet, in certain important respects, we have not moved all that far from the view Aristotle expresses.
Today even pets and farm animals have minimal legal protection against abuse. Children enjoy, at least in principle, much more extensive legal protection; and certainly enlightened people have become much more sensitive to the prevalence of child abuse, which they strongly condemn. Nevertheless, there are many respects in which, legally and morally, children are still treated today as the property of their parents. Thus, for example, a court may award the custody of a child whose mother has died to the child’s biological father, even though the child has never lived with him but has been taken care of by the mother’s life-in partner, whom she loves and regards as her father. In general, the “property” conception of children makes it hard to be sure that children will enjoy the protection against abuse they need, and the love and support they both need and deserve.
John Locke suggested that parents hold their children in custody from God, until their maturity. According to him, all parents are placed by the Law of Nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the Children they had begotten, not as their own Workmanship, but the Workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to who they were to be accountable for them. (Second Treatise of Government, sec. 56)
Locke added that the power “that Parents have over their Children, arises from that Duty which is incumbent on them to take care of their Offspring, during the imperfect state of Childhood.” (ibid., sec. 58)
The idea that one holds one’s children in custody from God might be a very attractive one in a society united by a common theology. But it seems to be of no general use in our own multi-cultural and largely secular society. On the other hand, if, like Plato, we thought of children as the property of the state, then parents could be thought of as having their children in custody for the state. But we are not, most of us, comfortable with that idea either. As it is, we can perhaps do little better than think of the society as having a legal and moral interest in protecting the welfare of its children – an interest that underlies and justifies legal protections against child abuse, as well as welfare measures that do something to promote their health and provide for their education. One might want to add, as I do, that a liberal society also has an interest in validating and protecting certain children’s rights. But how such a claim could be justified goes well beyond the scope of this paper.
Recent contributions to this discussion include Cohen (1980), which takes the position that children should have the same rights as adults even if, lacking the capacities needed to exercise a given right that adults have, they will need to borrow the capacities of others to exercise those rights. In contrast to the Cohen position, Purdy (1992) argues that affording equal rights to children would damage their own interests, as well as those of the society.
A useful introduction to the wide range of philosophical issues that concern children’s rights is to be found in Ladd (1996). See also Gross, 1977, Houlgate, 1980, Wringe, 1981, and Archard, 1993.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/childhood/
Note: This valuable resource could use a small donation to help them out.
HSLDA behind denial of service attacks

- Image by Getty Images via Daylife
The following news is popping up all over the Christian homeschool blog network. These people take pride in their ability to harass whatever government department or individual Farris sees as a target. Here is what one blogger wrote:
Michael Farris, HSLDA Chairman, asked the members to take action by calling the White House and their Congressional leaders, letting them know that they strongly oppose the “anti-family and anti-American treaty”. He also asked that calls be made to Ambassador Susan Rice’s office at the United Nations voicing these concerns.
A few hours after the initial E-lert from HSLDA, another email came through sharing this fantastic news: “The office of UN Ambassador Susan Rice has been inundated with calls! The first phone line we sent out has been completely shut down, and the voice mail system for all of their lines has been crashed.”
Dominionist zealot Farris has used the members of his lobbying group, HSLDA to harass state legislatures around the country and they fear him politically so they cave in when he launches a denial of service attack.
I believe in free speech and I believe in citizens talking to their government representatives, but this is just a bully acting out his power trip. There was absolutely nothing urgent about the activities Susan Rice was engaged in that a polite letter could not have communicated.
If you read the Christian home school blogs the level of bigotry and ignorance you encounter is breathtaking. Farris claims to have 80,000 members. I doubt if one percent of them could hold an intelligent phone conversation with Susan Rice if their life depended on it. But Demagogue Farris speaks to his lemmings in highly loaded emotional language and has all of them foaming at the mouth over the UN CRC ratification. Moreover, they are not calling to actually conduct business. The tactic is nothing more than intimidation.
Perhaps it is time to modify our phone system so that abuse like this cannot be aided by autodialers. Set some limits on the number of times a phone can be autodialed and spread the time out to several hours for each attempt.
Related articles by Zemanta
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Update) (dequalss.com)
Join Us for the 2009 National Symposium on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is pleased to announce that our National Symposium will be held from June 1-2, 2009 in Washington, DC at the Georgetown University Law Center. This event is being co-sponsored by the Georgetown University Law Center’s Juvenile Justice Clinic.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child: Why It is Time to Ratify
The focus of the 2009 Symposium, The Convention on the Rights of the Child: Why It is Time to Ratify, is to look at the Convention through the lens of its impact on U.S. children. To facilitate a better understanding of the CRC’s applicability, we have organized six interactive panel discussions that will explore the Convention in the context of the following topics:
* Education
* Health
* Needs, Rights, and the Human Family
* Participation
* Special Protection Measures
* Supportive Environments for Children
The Symposium will bring together a multi-disciplinary group of experts representing the fields of child and human development, education, health/medicine, law, psychology, public policy, and social work.
Registration and Accomodations
To register for the Symposium, click here.
All Symposium participants are responsible for obtaining their own accommodations. However, the Campaign has reserved a small block of rooms on Georgetown University’s Main Campus. Transportation between the Main Campus and the Law Center will be provided. Housing reservations will be processed on a first come, first serve basis. Click here to download the Housing Registration Form. Please note, online payment for housing is not available. Your registration form and check or money order must be sent to the address below and be postmarked by April 10, 2009:
The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) P.O. Box 2581 Kensington, MD 20891-2581
Panelists and Keynotes
Information will be posted on the Web Site once finalized.
« Newer Posts


![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=110cb2d3-374c-43a1-a29b-25caf9ebd1b3)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=447502a3-768c-426d-b594-ae3e1b747de9)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=572de16d-546c-488a-ba55-f64e684d50b4)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=131a664a-39b7-4762-a0cc-f3cafc6ad1b4)





