It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

USA; resistant to children rights???

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:27 AM
link   
I was baffled about something that my friend tolled me.

The United Nation has a Children Charter that said Children have rights.

""All children have the same right to develop their potential – all children, in all situations, all of the time, everywhere. UN convention for rights to the child signed in 1989.""
But not every country signed this...United State of America and Somalia didn’t signed it and loads of countries that haven't ratified it, including the UK.

William S. Farish, who was the USA,UK ambassador said that they were too busy working on women's rights at that moment, and also that it frequently takes at least 30 years to approve a treaty. By the way many other treaty have been known to be settled much lesser then 30 years specially the treaty that concern wars or other issue like President Clinton signed Kyoto but did not ratify.
But the thing is how can you ratify a treaty that you haven't even signed? Plus it was signed in 1989 that was 15 years ago, surely there should be some means of approval.
I'm somewhat puzzled, are the UN just going to let them get away with it? This charter is the largest sign up in history of UN with 192 countries participating and yet the most powerful country in the world, and most better off, decide not to sign it.
I am sure that USA have very good regulation to protect children in side of their border, but what about protecting children all around the world?


kacou




posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:39 AM
link   
I forget to ask!
I would like to hear from American citizen if they know about it and what they think about it.
I wouldn’t engage my self in pointing finger, as I said I myself only know about it few days a go. What I am surprise about is the small information about this kind of legislation which is paramount to solidified our humanity.

Kacou



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
My guess, the lack of support for this charter stems from the historical memory of those in power (the Corporations in paticular) of a time when child labour was a productive force in the US. If corporations want to reap the benefits of unregulated capitalism like they did in the 1800's, this charter would only hinder their efforts.

Edit to add: Make no mistake, US citizens as a generalization, care deeply for children and their rights, but that doesnt mean their representatives do.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by kacou
 


i haven't read it but, i can be sure that parental rights would have something to do with it, because parents are ultamitly resposible for their chinldren.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by kacou
 



I'm somewhat puzzled, are the UN just going to let them get away with it?


Get away with it? LOL I think the US should break away from the UN...I dont want the UN running my life at all. The UN is a big fat joke.



I am sure that USA have very good regulation to protect children in side of their border, but what about protecting children all around the world?


Are you saying that you think the US should be protecting children outside the US too? I would think the rest of the world doesnt want us involved in their affairs - unless it means us giving them money of course..



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


This charter is about protecting and giving children all a round the world same chances.
I am not saying that USA should run a crusade(not proper, I know..but couldn’t resist) to save all the children of the world, what I am saying is that if US sign it then it will be in line with a judiciary protection process for children out side they border. Sending a signal to all this countries (many which have sign the Charter) which abuse children in many ways.
For the moment only private company in America is doing it, you can refer to the late news story of GAP and the plant outside USA.

kacou



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by rockets red glare
 


Yes parent are prime responsible for the children, but here we are talking about some children that have no chances to start a life like a US child , Uk child, French Child or any children from the wealthy country. I am sure you are a ware that many country are not spending enough in to education or wellbeing despite the will and love of the parents.

Kacou



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Because, like all Charters, resolutions, Declarations, treaties and anything else issuing from the UN, it is a meaningless piece of paper.

Actions, not the pseudo fluffy blather of self important elitists are what matter. Sign all the charters and crap you want, if you don't abide by said declarations, does it matter?

For that matter, does anyone really believe the UN is still relevant?



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Who cares about children.....

/sarcasm



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
This so doesn't surprise me considering the entire planet hasn't even figured out human rights as a whole yet. Why concentrate on just children?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Enthralled Fan
 

Because if we start by protecting the children now then when they grow up maybe they will also implement the human right better then what we can do today.

Kacou



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Edit to add: Make no mistake, US citizens as a generalization, care deeply for children and their rights, but that doesnt mean their representatives do.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by InSpiteOf]


I love how such a blatant contradiction of terms has worked it's way into what we see as 'normalcy'


Also, signing such a treaty would make it more difficult to sedate children while they are young, therefore making it more difficult to maintain the controllable populace in America. Obviously we're not interested in such rubbish here.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by kacou
 

I think the U.S. didn't sign it, because of unwanted U.N. control. Like the slogan, "Get the U.S. out of the U.N."
I think it would be good for struggling countries, though!

We already have many laws protecting children.
We're a Soveriegn country.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Um, the world would do well to keep government and politicians out of raising children. Having and parenting children is the right and responsibility of the parents - not these PUKE politicians! STAY THE F**K OUT OF MY PERSONAL AFFAIRS!!!


I have not seen anything good or beneficial come from government mandates on children - vaccines, education, discipline etc... etc. In fact, it seems to me that anything the politicians touch turn to pure sh*t!

We don't need a nanny state and we sure don't need a nanny world!



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Many european country have also good law to protect their children but still they sign the treaty.

Kacou



new topics




 
0

log in

join