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.

 

United Nations's Threat: No More Parental Rights

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

United Nations' threat: No more parental rights


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.


wnd.com...

This brings a bright light to the NWO subject. Note who monitors this treaty..........the CRC.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Cloudsinthesky]




posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Cloudsinthesky
 



* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

* A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

* The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

* A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

* According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

* Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

* Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.



You know I agree with many of these in principal. There is no such thing as a reasonable spanking, religion should not be taught in school except in a historical context, older children should learn about BC options, they should not be penalized for their religion, and certainly should not face life in prison/the death penalty.

However the key is in principal... it would be disasterous for the government to try to legislate that.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Lets add to the mix the Obama youth movement..........



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
World Net Daily articles just baffle me.
(See Source Here)

They start out with OMG Propaganda - usually screw up some fact or two along the way to then blah blah blah their way through the article until the last paragraph which proves it’s never going to happen anyway.

I wish I could remember the names of other articles that followed this same hype - rout but I can’t.
Just goes to show how unimportant they were.

So you just got all whoop-whooped for nothing.


"I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime," he said. "There's not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it."


Don't get me wrong - I'd be horrified if I thought this had any chance of passing - maybe I should be more concerned - it's just hard to coming from WND.

peace



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
So they are wanting to tell us how to raise our kids... I dont think they are big enough for that fight.

This is one of the most retarded ideas ever. Can you imagine how swamped they would be if the kids knew they could complain about everything..

The system is bogged down as it is.. add this on top...

it wont fly.. no way does government want to play babysitter to how many millions of kids...



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I agree with you about the source, but the fact that some group is pushing this agenda is enough to raise my concern.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

* A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

* The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

* A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

* According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

* Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

* Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.



Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children. - That will be the day someone tells me I cannot discipline my child. There is nothing wrong with a little discipline, it builds character and teaches child right fomr wrong, that is unless you love your child running through wallmart screaming thie heads off and you just standing there walking around. Abuse is wrond no doubt about that, but there is a major difference between abuse and a light smack on the ass.

A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison. - There is no death penalty In Canada so this one does not effect my country.

Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion. - I do tend to agree with this one as I went from being raise a Catholic and I have chosen to rather not follow any religion. I'm not atheist I just dont like the idea of some Higher being deciding my life for me. This has more to do with not believing in fate or destiny. Thats all crap to me. And my child should have the right to follow whatever religion if one at all they see fit.

The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision. - this one is totaly crap, it will be a cold day in hell that some government worker can come into my house and tell me how to raise my child. There is a fine line between protecting a childs saftey from unfit parents and allowing a government paid worker being allow to rule over any child they wany. This one crosses that line.

A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed. - I'm not even sure how this one would effect me. My children have my respect and are allowed to be heard on all aspects of the family. And I respect my children enough to make thier own choices in life. Best I can do is offer my advice, it's up to them wether they want to listen.

According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare. - This one is a little hard to decide, yes it would be best to spend all available money on the children of your country, but if you cant defend your country, odds are you kids might die in a war. This one is hard to make a stand on.

Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC. - Dont get this one either, if you dont want your child learning about Christianity, them why the hell would you enrole them in a catholic school?

Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC. - Again, why would you opt them out of this material. It's a very good thing for children to learn in my eyes. then again i dont agree with teaching them at say grade 4 or 5. At least wait until about grade 7 or 8. thats my view though.

Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent. - In a way i can agree with this one. I may or may not believe in abortions but I have no right telling my child what to believe in this matter. If they are informed enough to make the intelligent choice based on thier opinion of the subject then I have no right telling them otherwise.





People here may think I may be wrong on some of these issues and that fine. I raise my kids the way I was raised. I was never told to wash up, do my homework, brush my teeth. I was taught self-reliance at a early age. I new the rules in my house, if i broke them I was punished. Was I spanked.....yes, was it ever out of control or abusive. Not to me, but to some people I'm sure they would think so. I truely believe the way people are told to raise thier children these days is creating a generation of spoiled brats. If you can believe this I was kicked out of the local
Walmart a few weeks back for gentley spanking my child as they threw a fit in the store. Some person whom I've never met told me not to "STIRKE" my child and that I should be arrested. The manager of the store was informed I was abusing my child and threw me out.


[edit on 2/5/0909 by Trayen11]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
About 2 days later a social services came to my house and was scolding me about my rights to impose abuse on my child. The funniest thing I have ever seen happened then. My daughter politley told the lady to leave the house as she did not like the way she was talking to her Dad. The lady respondes to my daughter by saying "I'm only looking out for your well being dear". My daughters reply was such as " I'm fine lady. I did something I knew i should not do and my Dad gentley reminded me. Why are you acting as if he threw me against a wall and beat me senseless. "

My daughter kindly asked the lady to leave at which time I asked her to leave as well. The woman talked to me for 5 more mins, threatening to open a case agianst me. I told her to do what ever she wanted to do.

After the lady left my daughter asked if we could sue the stupid woman for invasion of privacy LMAO

[edit on 2/5/0909 by Trayen11]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Trayen11
 


LOL Trayen...that's just priceless! Go go good parenting!

With the source being World Net Daily; I'm meh, about it...besides who in their right mind would even allow that. And with that clause of 'According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.'

That right there won't fly with the U.S. and most countries, whatever this memo is, it flies in the face of every nations current policies.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Would this mean that every time you tried to get the kids to


  1. tidy their room
  2. do the dishes
  3. take out the trash
  4. walk the dog
  5. cut the lawn
  6. not play music so loud you can hear it a mile away
  7. and the rest of the stuff kids do

that they can seek a review from the courts? Won't that be fun for all the parents.

Kids have a right to grow up in a decent environment, and that includes learning to take responsibility for their actions and to care for their environment. Legislation like this will just enrich the lawyers and make everyone elses life a misery.

Broad brush and ill-thought out legislation never resolves the issues.

Sadly this sort of message coming from the UN is worrying, whereas Finland has good ways of dealing with kids and youth offending, it seems (as ever) the US model will be forced on everyone which will just punish the wrongdoers without seeking to address the underlying problems.

I almost do wish the world would end in 2012, at least it will take out the legislators and health and safety morons.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Trayen11
 


I love your daughter's replies. My family ran into a similar encounter years ago. I was a jr. or sr. in high school at the time, about 15 years ago. My sister, then in 7th or 8th grade, had gone to the school counselor's office crying that she didn't want to go home. The counselor, without asking why, called DCFS and the police. My parents finally, hours later, were called and told about the situation. After being read the riot act by the police and DCFS, my parents (knowing my sister) asked these people if anyone had bothered asking my sister why she didn't want to go home. Not a single one had. So, they all troop in to where my sister is waiting and ask her. Her answer? It was her night to help me do the dishes.

You would think that that would have been the end of it all, but no. A DCFS worker showed up at the house a few days later. Both of my parents were still at work and I was babysitting. Being 17 or 18 at the time, that wasn't a problem, but you would have thought that we had been on our own for days the way the lady acted.

Having been raised in an environment like your house, allowed to discuss and question anything, I was capable of independent thought and definitely of forming my own opinions. This lady was incredibly condescending and so I decided that I would return to her the attitude she was giving to me. She was pushing to be allowed in the house, despite my parents being not home, and I refused to allow her in. I came out, with my siblings, to talk to her, but she, a stranger I didn't know, sure wasn't getting into the house. I finally told her that for all I knew she could very well be half of a partnership trying to lure kids into trusting her so that they could be kidnapped by sexual predators. She wasn't amused, but I stood by my point. I didn't know her, she wasn't entering. I assured her that if I sensed any threat from her I would defend first and question later.

After agreeing that she would talk to us on the porch in view of the neighbors, she started asking if we had ever been abused. I, maybe unwisely (or not, considering the eventual outcome), was goading her. I was a mouthy beast and prone to sarcasm. She kept asking why my sister wouldn't want to come home. I had been goading her for a bit and asked her if she would want to have to share KP with me. She agreed that she would not want to spend time on KP with me. I explained that she had just answered her own question.

She moved on to asking if we were punished too harshly. I asked her to define "too harshly", asking if my being grounded from going to the school dance for my mouthiness counted, or maybe she meant that I got phone privileges taken away for a week, again for the mouthing off, was too harsh, 'cuz darned if I didn't think so. I had a boyfriend to call, darn it! She then asked about my siblings and their punishments. I informed her that I had pretty well broken in my parents for them. She kept pushing, asking the same thing different ways. I explained that she could ask as many ways as she liked, but that she wasn't doing herself any favors. I informed her that I was particularly good at the semantics game and would be happy to show her by out playing her. Again, not amused. I finally relented and told her "Lady, I wouldn't be out here annoying the crap out of you if I were so afraid. Who do you think taught me that doing my own thinking and opinion forming is important, anyway?"

She finally stormed away. Outcome? A child as mouthy as I wasn't being shown firm enough parenting - no evidence, case closed. I think she just didn't want to chance having to talk to me ever again.

Just one situation showing why this proposition would never be feasible.
Take care,
Cindi



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Problem is that the UN is sort of above the law and they are now wagering human lives on a system that is completely broken. I for one will not go for it. This implies that they believe that You are their property and your children are their property, this sounds like a global government effort that nobody in their right minds would ever go for.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
FYI.....if you agree or disagree, dislike or like......Glenn Beck will have this topic on his show tomorrow about this treaty with the UN... 2/6/09

For all of those who have posted that "we would never allow this to happen" Well just look at where we are today with our government..(for U.S. ATS Members).

Don't think it can't happen....................



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Cloudsinthesky
 

I don't believe in hitting children, or even spanking, unless they do something like run into a road full of traffic.

I also don't believe in forcing religion on them, until they are old enough to make their own descision as to what is right for themselves. The best option until they are old enough to decide, is teach them the "golden rule," which is a common thread in any religion.

Watching childred grow, and learn is an awesome thing, when you don't relive the past of your own parents, and how they controlled you.

Parents can sometimes learn from children, when they don't rule the house with a heavy hand. I did.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
How you raise your child is up to you........but are you ready for the U.N. to tell you as a parent and regulate/enforce what you can or can not do?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cloudsinthesky
How you raise your child is up to you........but are you ready for the U.N. to tell you as a parent and regulate/enforce what you can or can not do?


I guess it would be on what the agenda is. This might be broad spectrum to put an end to parental abuse, of which I have no problem with.

Parents get away with all kinds of abuses, which affect a child to not live up to their potential.

I would like to see as well, and some might think this is wrong, strict regulations on pregnant women. How they live, do they drink, smoke, etc..what is their diet?

Unfortunately, the world is a small place, and I do think, now that I am older and with the economy the way it is, that there is no excuse or accidental pregnancies, or children born to crack Momma's.

People must consider not only now thier mindset will affect children, but their overall economic status, also.

I just read an interesting book called "Ishmael." It talks about how we live using our resources based on growth that is un-natural.

Everyone needs to be accountable for what they do, in regards to having children (I mean producing them)

It's time for hormones to replace reality. It isn't fair anymore.

Does this answer your question?(s)



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I guess my thread did not spell out the obvious about the U.N.....

A NEW WORLD ORDER!

There are plenty of other threads about that topic..........but it all starts with threaties like this one if we let them...

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Cloudsinthesky]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I would highly suggest that you guys read this bill in its' entirety! This is not ALL that this bill is about.
It is a flat out take away the parents right to have ANY say outside of what the state and Government demands they do! This includes but is NOT limited to medicating your child, presenting your child for spot inspections when demanded, administration of state and Government mandated educational materials at "THEIR" discretion.IF you step outside their RULES for raising a child you go to JAIL and they TAKE your CHILD. It goes on and on for hundreds of pages.... This bill is not just about a child's right to be treated with love and respect; it is TOTALLY about YOU no longer having the ability to make ANY decisions for or about your child PERIOD.
They tried to pass this about 5 or so years ago and it was shot down! They changed the wording on a few pages to make it look more child friendly; but it IS THE SAME THING. If this is adopted NONE of us will no longer have the RIGHT to raise our children outside of what we are told to do.


Just so you know the school systems have been acting like this thing passed for over 10 years now. When I got into an argument with my sons teacher for lying to me about his academic level in kindergarten. I got a call from the superintendent of our district telling me I HAD NO RIGHTS as his parent to say how he was going to be taught AND that if I didn't have him at school the next day he would have the police at my door to take him. Well the police did come; I personally called her C.O (when she refused) and demanded he get her out of my house or I would sue the city as I had recorded the whole threatening scene. Lets just say they saw my side of it and have left me alone for 10 years now.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Cloudsinthesky
 


Children are our the future. Could that be something the UN sees, but you do not?

In this crazy wold, of war, pestillence, hunger, abuse by parents, and even something as simple as education, I don't see how other's looking out to help people that don't have resources is a bad thing.

I tend to think, that you are over sensationalizing a bit, and question your own parenting skills, is what led to this thread.

If you are safe with how you are raising your own children, this should not affect you.

Rather than you being upset about rules, you should be happy others have set standards, to follow now, who are not as proficient as yourself, in being a parent.

Some children might not be so lucky as to have a parent like you.

edit to fix sentance



[edit on 5-2-2009 by Enthralled Fan]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trayen11
If you can believe this I was kicked out of the local
Walmart a few weeks back for gentley spanking my child as they threw a fit in the store. Some person whom I've never met told me not to "STIRKE" my child and that I should be arrested. The manager of the store was informed I was abusing my child and threw me out.


Gently spanking? Lol. Sorry. I am sure you werent beating them severely about the head and face, but "gently spanking" sounds funny.

And no, I cant believe the manager threw you out. How dare he or she.

They should have gently spanked you to teach you "right from wrong" about how they prefer you to behave in your store.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join