You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
International-UN-NGOs
UN Threat: No more parental rights
2009-02-06
A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families' religion is on America's doorstep, a legal expert warns.

Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.

"It's definitely on our doorstep," he said. "The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election."

The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.

Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.

The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." While the treaty states that parents or legal guardians "have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child," Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents' decisions are in their children's best interest. The treaty is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.
There's a lot more. Obama indicated in October that he would support this document.
Posted by:mom

#6  For that matter how can the Federal Government make laws (or treaties) covering so called 'privacy' or 'reproductive' rights? Where the hell is that given in the constitution? (not that anyone o the SCOTUS reads it anymore...)
Posted by: CrazyFool   2009-02-06 17:38  

#5  How does the Federal government have the jurisdiction to make a treaty on home schooling? That would be a State right and I don't see how the Feds could have standing to negoiate it away. Of course there are a lot of things the Feds do that I don't see them having jurisdiction over.
Posted by: Glenmore   2009-02-06 16:32  

#4  Commies gotta protect their base, the teachers' unions. Thus, no more home schooling. Too many dangerous democratic ideas taught by mothers. Gotta implant the socialist agenda at an early age.
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2700   2009-02-06 13:52  

#3  Sounds like Hillary's old childs-rights hoo-hah. Part of the reason why, though I voted for her in the primaries, I really, really didn't want to see her back in power. She used to push ideas that were more than a little insane.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2009-02-06 10:52  

#2  WND needs its own salt shaker.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2009-02-06 09:41  

#1  Sorry, Mods--I forgot to correct the category.
Posted by: mom   2009-02-06 09:17  

00:00