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


The USA Should Move to Institute International Standards on Child Rights

Book Review

James G. Dwyer, The Relationship Rights of Children. Cambridge University Press, 2006, $ 55.00 hardcover.

The United States and Somalia stand as the only two nations in the world that refuse to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a document that lays down the basic rights and moral standing of children. Nor has the U.S. attempted to adopt the comprehensive legislation passed in many countries, such as England’s The Children Act, which focuses on all matters pertaining to children, with the child’s welfare squarely defining all legal actions.

James Dwyer, in his complexly argued book, The Relationship Rights of Children, believes that, while the United States goes far in protecting parents” rights, it is often at the expense of the welfare of children. He does not offer why the United States leans so far in favor of parents (there are complicated historical and cultural reasons for our “difference”), but instead makes a strong case, based on two centuries of philosophical reasoning, for why children deserve the same moral and legal consideration as adults, even when this consideration steps on the rights of adults.

The debate about children’s rights, when it takes place at all in this country, is usually carried on by legal scholars, with the occasional contribution of social scientists who either study child development or who offer measures of children’s economic and psychological well-being. With Dwyer, we are offered extensive arguments from the philosopher giants, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, John Rawls and others on the value of the moral autonomy of the individual. These philosophers, he admits, focus their arguments on adults, not children. In fact, he notes, John Stuart Mill, in his theory of liberty, specifically states: “[this] is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties.” Not so for Dwyer. He makes a compelling case that the same moral rights apply to children.

“Critically then, each of us competent adults has rights of self-determination because it is generally assumed as a moral matter that our interests matter, and matter equally regardless of our status in society. This empirical assumption certainly applies to children as well, and if we are to respect children as equals, we must extend the moral assumption to them also–that is, that their interests matter as much as do adults’ interests in state decision making.”

But how do children know what their interests are, and if they did, how can they assert them? Children are, of course, dependent upon adults to do so for them. But which adults? Here Dwyer argues forcefully that although the law professes to promote “the best interests of children,” in fact it is far more protective of parental rights, and that these rights are often based on a purely biological claim, not any test of parental ability. Dwyer promotes a view of parents as caretakers, not automatic owners of children. He focuses his criticism on laws creating parental rights at birth, and protecting them in events of abuse and neglect after birth. His solution is to drastically re-formulate the law so that, among other requirements, a birth mother must sign a “Parental Vow” promising love and support within two days after birth in order to become a legal parent, but the state may file a petition within seven days to determine in a court proceeding whether the mother is, in fact, unsuitable for one of many reasons, including age, mental incapacity, past conduct of violence against family members, etc. Fathers achieve legal parenthood only if the birth mother consents and they are married. Fathers not married to the mother can only be deemed legal parents if the mother consents and the father petitions the court, passing all the tests of adequate parenting. Non-biological adults may also petition the court within 30 days and their claim will be determined by the court. Following birth, similar strict tests are applied in cases of abuse or neglect of children, allowing the court to more easily terminate parental rights than is now the case.

His view of children’s rights privileges birth mothers but gives little other advantage to biological ties. Unwed fathers still have an obligation to support but not to access unless they have passed all the above tests. Adults who have acted like parents, or have firm attached relationships to children, like stepfathers, have rights over non-involved biological fathers, and a child may have more than two significant adults in his life. From this perspective, attachment trumps biology and a parent must earn the right to become and to continue as a parent.

This concept of parents as caretakers or trustees rather than the owners of children who have independent rights is much more in keeping with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and with most European efforts at establishing a code of children’s rights. Some of its obvious consequences would be a move toward no corporal punishment and ultimately the right of children themselves, as they grow older, to petition to “divorce” their parents–the course taken in Europe.

Grounded in a strong tradition of moral philosophy, this child-centered approach adds valuable support to some American legal scholars and others who have been moving more timidly in this direction, most notably with a new revision of the influential American Law Institutes” treatise on Parent and Child where “de facto” parents (such as stepparents) without biological ties would be given greater access rights.

A limitation of this book is that Dwyer limits himself to the “protective” rights of young children and does not wander into the thornier “choice rights” of maturing adolescents. For instance: does the protective state have the right to insist on drug testing for children before they may join any after-school activity, as the Supreme Court recently ruled? or, are the rights of children served when in one courtroom a 13-year-old who steals a candy bar may be given a lawyer and nearly all the due process rights of a criminal defendant while down the hall a 13-year-old whose physical custody is being determined following divorce may have no voice or representation at all? Perhaps this philosopher will tackle maturing children’s rights in his next book.

Mary Ann Mason

University of California, Berkeley

Reblog this post [with 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]


Abuses Against Children Persist Despite Rights Convention

Mia Farrow
Image by talkradionews via Flickr

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-08-voa53.cfm

VOANews.com

By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
08 October 2009

Child 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

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 have the right to information

Foto 100: Mirada contrapuesta.
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

Enhanced by Zemanta


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


2009 National Symposium on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

United States

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.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Parental Inquisition | Democrat = Socialist

by Peter Kamakawiwoole writing at Parental Rights

Sweden and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

There’s an old saying that once you reach the top, you can only go down. For the nation of Sweden, however, reaching the top was only the beginning.

Sweden has long been regarded as a model nation, whose policies and laws are at the cutting-edge of international thinking on children’s rights. Sweden was the first nation to completely ban corporal punishment, the first to make sex education a mandatory feature of its educational curriculum, and the first to offer working parents free child-care for all children between the ages of 1 and 12. Thus, it should come as no surprise that on June 29, 1990, Sweden became the ninth nation in the world – and the first industrialized Western country – to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

And apparently, such innovations were only the beginning.

The modern regime in Sweden enjoys broad discretionary authority over parents, and is presently engaged in what Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson has termed a “parental inquisition.” The inquisition is broad, affecting educational decisions, child-rearing practices, parental discipline, and even the removal of children from their homes. The state wields incredible power, guided solely by its own “insights” into the child’s “best interests.” Against such power, no child or family is safe.

Sex-ed: No exemptions… period

When it comes to schools teaching children about the birds and the bees, American parents are used to two familiar words: “opt out.” Even parents who do not take advantage of parental exemptions are aware of their availability.

Apparently, that option has become outdated in Sweden.

In March 2008, Sweden’s government sought to take its trend-setting policies on mandatory sex education to the next level by eliminating all exemptions for parents – including parents with religious and philosophical differences.1 According to the state, all students, irrespective of religious or cultural beliefs, should receive instruction in the same subjects, and parental “exemptions” were being used as a ploy to keep children in ignorance. “Our belief in a tolerant society,” state officials wrote in a local paper, “should never result in us covering our eyes when women are the victim of attacks or being denied their rights with the excuse that it is a part of their culture or religion.”2

According to the state, the changes were primarily aimed at Sweden’s large Muslim immigrant populations, many of whom claimed religious exemptions for sex-ed classes.3

Although the proposal prompted a national debate, particularly among the nation’s major newspapers, nearly all of them came down firmly in favor of the government’s position. According to one paper, “religion has its given place in people’s lives. But in school, religious convictions ought to be studied, rather than be in control.”4 Another paper opined that eliminating the parental exceptions would be a good thing because it would give individual students “more power to decide for themselves whether or not they want to attend lessons which their parents find objectionable.”5

via Parental Inquisition | Democrat = Socialist.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Older Posts »