UNCRC moving towards ratification

The well funded HSLDA and their offspring, the ParentalRights.org have waged a constant campaign of lies and disinformation about the UNCRC for many years. Like all propaganda, if it is repeated often enough, the unwary will accept the lies as truth. These devious disgraceful organizations are doing a great disservice to the potential health and happiness of children around the world.

Please get the facts from Americans who are working to see the convention ratified and implemented. There are more than 200 organizations (religious and NGOs) here in the USA who support the convention and most of our allies in the Western democracies including the UK, Canada, Australia, and nearly all the European countries are implementing laws to conform with the articles of the UNCRC.

No reasonable person would examine the facts and believe the disinformtion published by HSLDA. They are getting away with it because average Americans are not generally experts in international law, child development, or human rights. The common man or woman is easily swayed by fear mongering Washington lobbyists, whose goal is to goad people into sending them money to keep the disinformation mill churning out rubbish.

Children’s Rights & American Christianity « Signs of Our Times
200 institutions and organizations support ratification of the UN CRC.
http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/christians-usa-childrens-rights/#support

Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
Detailed exposition of pro/con arguments
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fnB158

When you encounter the lies spread by HSLDA reply to them with accurate information as given above. We need a truth squad to push back because if the lies are not refuted many people will take the charlatans words as truth.

Enhanced by Zemanta


UN agency adopted a new general comment in 2006 on corporal punishment

Legality of corporal punishment in Europe {{le...
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 standards

The 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.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


BILL S-207 and the UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Children

Map: Canada – geopolitical Drawn and adapted b...
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

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Innaiah Narisetti

—– Forced Into Faith: How Religion Abuses Children’s Rights by Innaiah Narisetti (Prometheus Books)

In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, proclaiming elementary rights for children worldwide. Among other provisions, the Convention safeguards children’s religious freedom and their freedom of thought. But because child rearing is recognized as the primary responsibility of parents, the question of what children are raised to believe is left up to their mothers and fathers.

In this controversial critique of the UN Convention, humanist Innaiah Narisetti forcefully argues that children’s rights should include complete freedom from religious belief. Narisetti proposes that the choice of religious belief or nonbelief should be deferred till adulthood. Just as most societies recognize that marriage and civic responsibilities such as voting are adult prerogatives that children should not be allowed to exercise, so should the choice of a belief system wait till an individual is competent to exercise mature judgment.

Narisetti cites numerous examples of the ways in which early religious indoctrination leads to later negative attitudes such as intolerance, suspicion, and outright hostility directed toward those who believe differently. He also notes that religion provides a cloak for such obvious evils as sexual abuse, genital mutilation, and corporal punishment of children. While most societies are quick to condemn such abuses, Narisetti suggests that they should be willing to take the next logical step and look to the role of religion in such problems.

Including the complete text of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this candid, unflinching critique of childhood religious education will provoke much thoughtful discussion.

Innaiah Narisetti, Ph.D. (Hyderabad, India), is the chairman of the Center for Inquiry, India, the former general secretary of the Indian Radical Humanist Association, and the author of Let Sanity Prevail, M. N. Roy: Radical Humanistand four other books.

Forced Into Faith: How Religion Abuses Children’s Rights

Enhanced by Zemanta


Children’s Bill of Religious Rights

Preamble:

The right to commit to a faith practice or be free of religion is an extremely personal one with consequences that usually shape a persons entire life. Usurping this right is unethical no matter how well intentioned the motive. In a free society children should actually not require a bill of religious rights, but unfortunately many children around the world are burdened by oppressive religious hegemony. Until societies come to respect their children as persons with rights and not objects to be molded by religion, free people must work towards gaining all children their religious rights. If freedom means anything, it means the right to chose.

  1. Children have an ethical right to decide questions involving religious practice for themselves and until they are old enough to exercise this right no one can presume to impose a religious faith on them for the purpose of biasing or thwarting that right.
  2. Therefore, parents will not consign children to a specific religious faith, but instead will insure their children receive a well rounded education about all faiths including a parent’s own personal choice. Parents may explain why they were motivated to follow a certain faith and openly practice their faith.
  3. Children require education to help them lead constructive lives, make appropriate decisions and get along in society. Such education must be neutral and not associated with the practice of any religious faith. They must never be admonished that there are supernatural rewards and punishments for the way they lead their lives.
  4. The initiative to receive religious instruction and participate in religious activities must come from the child, sans coercion of any kind.
  5. Therefore, it follows that before embarking on religious activities children must demonstrate that they have reached the level of maturity that they are thinking like an adult, meaning as one important measure they can realize that life is full of options and each option they might choose can have positive effects and negative drawbacks. They are to use facts and reason to weigh the positives and negatives in making all of their life choices. Children begin to think like adults around 12 to 14 years of age, but there can be wide variation between individuals.
  6. Children can change their mind at anytime and opt out or modify a course of action if circumstances warrant a change. Only the unwise continue to carry out a plan that is not working just for the sake of constancy. There is no disgrace in changing one’s mind when new facts and understandings so warrant such a change.
  7. Other family members and friends must respect a child’s decision and not interfere.
  8. The rights expressed in this document take precedence over any other rights expressed in other rights documents.

Please add your comments and suggestions to the Forum topic instead of commenting below.
http://www.endhereditaryreligion.com/forum/topic.php?id=28

Version .005


Troye Sivan will melt your heart

Troye’s efforts to aid homeless children are commendable. Listening to him sing this song he composed in their honor while watching the video scenes is heartwrenching. It doesn’t have to be like this.

If Troye’s song has inspired you to action and you want to aid homeless children around the world there could be nothing better that to actively support ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Senator Barbara Boxer and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are urging the United States Senate to ratify this important international treaty that has been ratified by 177 nations. Here in the United States over 300 religious organizations and Non Governmental Organizations support ratification.

http://childrightscampaign.org/crcindex.php (go here for ways to help)

Article 27 of the UN CRC

1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development.

3. States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.

4. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to secure the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents or other persons having financial responsibility for the child, both within the State Party and from abroad. In particular, where the person having financial responsibility for the child lives in a State different from that of the child, States Parties shall promote the accession to international agreements or the conclusion of such agreements, as well as the making of other appropriate arrangements.

More background and information about the UN CRC:

http://www.unicef.org/crc/

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fnB158 url, UN CRC ratification arguments
http://www.crin.org/
http://www.derechosinfancia.org.mx/Red/red_ing1.htm

Troye Sivan Resources:

group3mgt@sbcglobal.net Troye Sivan’s talent management agency, Group Three Management

Troye’s official web page http://www.troyesivan.com/about.html

There are many videos of Troye Sivan on YouTube. He also has a MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/troyesivan

Troye will appear in a major movie to be released in a few days.

Troye Sivan boy singing sensation.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Parents need not abandon their faith

La Conscience (d'après Victor Hugo)
Image via Wikipedia

There are ways parents can approach the issue of guiding a child’s faith that respects the child’s rights and honors the parents own faith. Parents object that they do not see a way to have their religion and not involve their children. But these are two separate issues.

There are strong objections to the way that child raising has assumed an element of obligatory childhood religious indoctrination. Children can be, and should be taught about religion, but it does not follow that they have to be forced into a particular faith. Teaching children about religion is quite different than forcing them to take up a specific religion.

The choice to commit to a religion is one that belongs to a person with a mature mind that can weigh the pros and cons and consult their own (their own) conscience about the matter. Notwithstanding this injunction, we can find child adherents that claim they became religious of their own volition. Clearly their parents must have unfairly influenced such children.

The documentary film Deborah 13: Servant of God tells the story of a such a child. Here is an abbreviated version of the film that was broadcast in the UK.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=deborah+13%3A+Servant&emb=0&aq=f#

Parents should wait to allow their children time to form the ability to think like an adult before allowing them to undertake religious training. Development experts say children around 12 to 14 are starting to think like adults. Furthermore, the initiative should be coming from the child not the parents. But, only after children have learned all the facts about religion: the relationship between religion and cults, the history of religion, and the impact of religion on society, both positive and negative.

All the ramifications should be discussed, parents must lay out all the possible options including eastern religions, not just various sects of Christianity. Also children should learn about the option of staying free of religion. Atheism or humanism are perfectly viable honorable choices.

Why should parents try to prevent their children from considering these options? Approximately 30,000,000 Americans lead happy productive secular lives guided by reason and as we can see in Europe and Scandinavia societies that are secular enjoy a high quality of life.

What parents, indeed cultures around the world, are doing now is dishonest and unethical. Parents withhold the knowledge of other options and do not fully disclose the drawbacks that go with getting involved in the supernatural. Religious communities can effect a persons freedom to be self determining and autonomous because for the indoctrination to work, the natural impluse of children to question everything must be tamped down. Religious institutions are not exactly hotbeds of skepticism, and that goes double for Sunday Schools and faith based schools.

Once a child enters a faith they usually find that leaving is not easy. Would it not be more fair if children knew this up front?

A frequent issue parents raise is what to do with small children if they do not take them to religious services. Surely this is not an insurmountable problem. There must be friends or family members who will care for children a few hours per month. Perhaps Christians could strike bargains with Jewish or Muslim friends who have a different Sabbath. Arrange a mutual support pact. In every family there is a circle of friends or family members that would step in. Parents can find ways to practice their faith, while simultaneously insuring their children’s religious freedom rights are not abridged.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Parents usurp the rights of their children

Amish schoolchildren
Image via Wikipedia

I have presented the moral argument that parents that consign their children to religion at an early age are usurping their children’s rights. There are people who will not see the logic. In this iteration I am trying one more time to explain.

Ok then let us work some more on the premise that children’s rights are usurped. I base this on the moral argument that every person is entitled to the right to autonomy and the right of self determination. Parents are guardians and are thus responsible for guarding their children’s “open future” as argued by philosopher Joel Feinberg.

One such principle is that proposed by Joel Feinberg in criticizing a US Supreme Court decision that permitted the Amish to end their children’s public schooling at 14, two years short of the legal limit.

The Court majority accepted the Amish argument that the continued existence of their 19th century religious farming community was at stake: if their children attended public high school, they would be less likely and less able to take up their roles in the community. Feinberg argued that the Amish violate their children’s “right to an open future,” namely, the right to be “permitted to reach maturity with as many open options, opportunities, and advantages as possible.”

This complex right has as its general basis the right to autonomy or self-determination, that is, “the sovereign authority to govern oneself, which is absolute within one’s own moral boundaries (one’s “territory,” “realm,” “sphere,” or business”).”

Of course, like other adult rights, the child’s right to autonomy is a right-in-trust, to be fully granted when a child has developed the capacities necessary for its exercise. On this view, it is a principal parental duty to help a child to develop the capacity for autonomy.

URL: http://tinyurl.com/2tf5rd (for the full 24 page paper)

Ever hear of any Amish female, or for that matter male, astronauts? How about concert pianists? Molecular biologists? I don’t think there are any women like this or we can be sure they would be famous and we would know about them. Instead there are girls who tip toe out of their parents house in the dead of night to escape from their religious gulag.

http://www.tkbventures.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=31

Amish children are relegated to a life of menial farm labor because of a zealous regard for the religious practice rights of their parents. To hell with the children, let’s give preference to preserving the parents religious rights. How brainwashing children ever got defined this way is beyond me. Because the only substantiating argument the Amish parents could offer were verses from the bible. How in hell that got to be accepted in a court of law, never mind our Supreme Court, is distressing. The bible is a legal document?

Which immediately should raise the question: why should an anachronistic backward ignorant religious sect that was put down at gun point by the Swiss in the 17th century deserve such high regard by people today? Let Anabaptism sink or swim by it’s own merits. The legislators and Supreme Court judges who allowed this oppression don’t pay any price. It is the children who suffer. They bear the total injustice of this situation.

It is not just the Amish that see their children as instruments of their scheme to perpetuate a religion. I think the Pope is also definitely an advocate of using children as instruments of his scheme to keep Catholicism going. Else why all the hysterical objections to family planning?

Enhanced by Zemanta


Canadians show us how it is done

Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigning, 2007
Image via Wikipedia

Senator Barbara Boxer and Sec of State Hillary Clinton are working to get the UN CRC treaty ratified in the next 60 days. The far right Christian fascists at Home School Legal Defense Association and ParentalRights.org are pumping out reams of misinformation to the thousands of people who hang on every word they publish. In turn, members of these groups cut and paste the propaganda they receive and flood the web with propaganda. The organizations are using this issue to raise money and will rake in millions with their divisive ill advised, self serving political strategy. They actually are trying to convince people that they can amend the US Constitution to “protect” parental rights. Representative Pete Hoekstra is the prime congressional mover and he has rounded up about 60 cosponsors.

To see the truth of how the treaty is being implemented, we have an example to study of how Canada is going about the implementation process. Each article in the treaty has to be analyzed and then supporting legislation is passed to bring state law into compliance with the objectives in the treaty. Contrary to the lies of the HSLDA no group of bureaucrats in Geneva sits around dreaming up laws that control people in the states which sign the treaty.

One of the things that the UN CRC is very clear about is physical violence against children, otherwise known as spanking, swatting, or other such euphemisms. A Canadian web site explains how Canada is changing their laws to make all forms of hitting children, illegal wherever they may be. Not only that, but mental abuse is also outlawed.

Children are separate people entitled to human rights. What a concept.

Here is the preamble to the Canadian legislation:

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 [to] 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

Here is the web site site where you can read more about how Canada is implementing the requirements of the convention.

A similar legislative process will take place in the United States as the various articles of the convention are implemented. The democracies of Europe are all working on implementing this treaty, not to mention dozens of countries around the world. A few countries have met all the legal requirements and have obtained the status of accession.

Here in the United States 200 religious organizations and NGOs support ratification and implementation of the UN CRC. Who is against it? The Southern Baptist Convention and the HSLDA.

Very soon the tykes up in Canada will be free of mis-informed, mis guided parents who still think they are lord and master of their domain and can do as they please to their children. That day cannot come too soon for our own children.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Countering lies and misinformation about the UN CRC

There is so much mis-information and lies being spread about the UN CRC. First of all many national religious organizations in the United States and NGOs working on behalf of children support ratification. Thousands of people around the world are working to implement the provisions of the treaty in their respective countries.

For a complete and rational analysis of the issues surrounding this convention please go to this Harvard Law school web site.

The propaganda being circulated by Parentalrights.org is meant to drive money into the hands of Washington attorneys and lobbyists. If you are going to blog about the UN CRC please get your facts straight from unbiased sources. The UNICEF page for example. Here are other sources of accurate information about child rights.

http://www.freethechildren.com/getinvolved/geteducated/childrights.htm
Caritas Australia—The Rights of the Child Chart
Child Rights Information Network (CRIN)
Human Rights Watch – Children’s Rights
Say it Right— A Youth Edition of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
UNICEF – Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
UNICEF – State of the World’s Children Report 2004
UNICEF – Voices of Youth
United Nations Special Session on Children
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/childrensrights/index.shtml

About CRIN
CRIN empowers the global child rights community through the exchange of information and the promotion of children’s rights. CRIN has 2,004 member organizations. There are 17,412 information resources on the site.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Older Posts »