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.

 

"Convention on the Rights of the Child"

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

"Convention on the Rights of the Child"


www.nworeport.com

Treaty known as "Convention on the Rights of the Child" which several countries have adopted, and is being supported for adoption by the United States by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and California Senator Barbara Boxer as well as the Obama Administration.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:




posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
This is an outrage and I think Americans should stand up and do something about this! What has happened to this country where this type of thing can happen? What will we let happen next in this country? What will it take for us as a people to finally say, enough!!! How much longer will we let things like this continue to happen.

www.nworeport.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
hrmmm . . .


I give them a big ole F.U.

I will raise my child as I see fit.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   


1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
2. 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.
3. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.
7. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
8. C hristian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.
9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
10. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.


This is fantastic, I think its a great step for Civil Rights.

Just because a child is a child doesn't mean they are not inquisitive, or intelligent. Children should not be merely indoctrinated with their parents' beliefs, they should be able to seek their own path in life. This is how my parents raised me, and I thank them at every opportunity for it.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I dont believe in all of it but I believe its a good step. Parents should not have the right to force their religion on their children or choose wether they keep a baby or not. Its not your body. They also shouldnt have the right to circumsize a child, why has that never been addressed? You can cut off half of my sexual organ at birth without my consent? Why does the child not get to choose when hes 18? Why does the mother decide this she doesnt even have a penis? This is a subject that you cannot bring up without being ridiculed because penis = bad and vagina = good in society today.

[edit on 26-4-2009 by Memysabu]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Memysabu
 


Because children aren't mature enough to make important decisions for themselves until they are grown. Their brain is still developing, and, along with it, their world view. What kind of world would this be if a parent was told that they aren't allowed to influence their child's worldview, and let them hanging in the wind? We've seen what happens to inner city children who lack essential parental guidance.

I say leave the parents to raise the children as they see fit; it's only for eighteen years. Most children will thank them for it when they're grown.

edit to say that this wasn't necessarily aimed at your opinion on circumcision: I believe that's wrong, as well.

[edit on 26-4-2009 by LiquidLight]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
This is an outrage. The government has no business telling people how to raise their kids. If their opinion was wanted, we'd ask for it. This is part of the one-world, PC, "progressive" agenda the UN has been trying to force feed us for years and now they're going to use this legislation indoctrinate the youth and pit them against us. This must not be tolerated.


TA



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   
I don't disagree with all of this (it's a good thing the government can't spend more on defences than child welfare, probably).

However I think it's absurd that the child can have a governmental review of any decision that they disagree with. I also think it's absurd that the government can over-ride parental decisions.

Lets say that your child asks you if they can sleep over at a friends place. You say no. Then your child can have a review (due to your decision they disagree with). If the government decides that it is in the childs best interests to let them sleep over at their friends house (because they have a right to leisure) then they can over-rule your say as a parent.

So the government can let your kid stay over at a friends place. No biggie you say.

Well then what happens if your child gets hurt while they are over at the friends place that you wouldn't let them stay at?

As a parent you knew that the place your child wanted to stay at wasn't the safest of households and thats the reason you wouldn't let your child stay over (before the over-ruling).

I would say that the majority of parents make decisions in their childs best interests (no I don't have data) and therefore this law is superfluous.

The only interest this (and this type of) law serves isn't yours.

All this law does is make it harder to raise children. It strips all rights from parents although they still have the same responsibilities.


Under this law the government can make any and all decisions about your child, if they wish. What rights do the parents have?

[edit on 27/4/09 by GobbledokTChipeater]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   
I saw this on Huckabee yesterday (a rerun from earlier in the week). All I have to say is
WTF!! I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

I have one child and I will raise her as I see fit. The attorney that was a guest on Huckabee was telling of an instance in WA state that a 13 year old boy complained to social services thru school that his parents made him go to church too much. They went Sun morning and Sun and Wed night prayer services. They took the kid out of the home and the judge ruled that they had the right only to take the child to church once a week and had to abide by that. Maybe church was cutting into his video game time, who knows? I am guessing they might be Baptist as that is the church schedule for them around here and most of them I know do the same - church three times a week. Another was of a thirteen year old girl who was having sex with her boyfriend and her parents found out and grounded her, etc., well, she got taken from the home as well. She now has a change of heart and says "obey your parents". Gee, that's a thought. LOL!

Regardless, what I don't like about the bill is this: My child will be disciplined as her father and I see fit. She is raised to be respectful of others and to be truthful, she has chores (not near what her dad and I had growing up) and she knows right from wrong. Now in a few years, or even now, I suppose she can complain that she has to clean her room and then suddenly we are abusive parents trampeling on the rights of our child. Not.

So, not only can the schools not discipline kids, not that it is their job, but when I was in school they could paddle you and back then, there was none of this BS that goes on in schools today. But now parents don't have the right to discipline them either. What is society going to look like in 10 years? I was always told growing up that as long as I lived under my parents' roof I obeyed their rules and as soon as I turned 18 and didn't like it, I was free to go. And honeslty, looking back, their rules really weren't as bad as I thought at the time. There is a difference in spanking a child and beating the living crap outta them, although I find that with a nine year old the threat of losing the cell phone, Nintendo and tv is enough.

This needs to be stopped in its tracks ASAP. Contact your senator and tell them so, at least you can say you tried

Just thinking now that the government wants to give new mothers a psych test, they want to dictate volunteerism of your children and now they want to tell you how to raise your kids. What's next?



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
I don't disagree with all of this (it's a good thing the government can't spend more on defences than child welfare, probably).

However I think it's absurd that the child can have a governmental review of any decision that they disagree with. I also think it's absurd that the government can over-ride parental decisions.

Lets say that your child asks you if they can sleep over at a friends place. You say no. Then your child can have a review (due to your decision they disagree with). If the government decides that it is in the childs best interests to let them sleep over at their friends house (because they have a right to leisure) then they can over-rule your say as a parent.

So the government can let your kid stay over at a friends place. No biggie you say.

Well then what happens if your child gets hurt while they are over at the friends place that you wouldn't let them stay at?

As a parent you knew that the place your child wanted to stay at wasn't the safest of households and thats the reason you wouldn't let your child stay over (before the over-ruling).

I would say that the majority of parents make decisions in their childs best interests (no I don't have data) and therefore this law is superfluous.

The only interest this (and this type of) law serves isn't yours.

All this law does is make it harder to raise children. It strips all rights from parents although they still have the same responsibilities.


Under this law the government can make any and all decisions about your child, if they wish. What rights do the parents have?

[edit on 27/4/09 by GobbledokTChipeater]


Exactly. And supposing you know a parent of said house where your child will be staying over is a drug addict, alcoholic or there is another kid or family member that you are leary of and that person molests your kid? Do you suppose the government is going to take responsibility for that because they made you let your kid go there.

There are too many what if's and I don't like it one bit. My daughter's dad and I are responsible for raising her in a safe environment and doing our best to teach her responsibility and right from wrong. I don't expect anyone else to do it and I don't WANT anyone else to do it, especially the government.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by opal13
What's next?



Whats next?! If this trend continues, we'll all have to give our children to the government when they are born. Then we'll be sent an invoice for the cost of raising our child while working 14 hour shifts on minimum wage (or 'voluntary') in the government-approved nursery raising someone else's child the way the government sees fit.


Now obviously that's facetious but it may be closer to the truth than we think.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Read it first. Deny ignorance.

If you folk are getting so worked up about it, you're worked up enough to read it. Go here.

Read, and understand, if you can, that the Convention is a good thing.

And understand, furthermore - some of you seem not to have grasped this - that people who hit people smaller than them, especially helpless little people who depend on them for everything including protection from physical harm, are acting in the most despicable way possible.

How dare you hit 'your' children? Have you misinterpreted that convenient adjective to mean that they belong to you, like chattel slaves? That they are your possessions to be beaten and brutalized as you see fit? You could not be more wrong. They belong only to themselves, and to human society. You have no right to 'bring them up as you see fit'. None whatever.

American exceptionalism seems to plumb new depths of selfishness and depravity all the time. The sentiments expressed in this thread are nothing short of vile.




posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Generalise much? As you can see from the distinct lack of a 'z' in generalise that I am not even American.

Now I admit that I haven't read the full article that you linked to, but I'm still sure that the points I raised above are still valid. Please point out to me if they are not. Thanks.


And by the way I have read this thread top to bottom twice, and:
- Nowhere in this thread did anybody say that it's OK to hit children.
- Nowhere in this thread did anybody say they hit their children.
- Nowhere in this thread did anybody say that their children belong to them, like chattel slaves.
- Nowhere in this thread did anybody say that their kids are their possessions to be beaten and brutalised as they see fit.

Why would you be dishonest and say those things as if it were our sentiments? Why would you tar everyone in this thread with the same imaginary brush which you invented?


How can a topic even be discussed with someone who simply discredits (in a big way, pretending we hits kids and stuff) anybody who disagrees with him/her?

[edit on 27/4/09 by GobbledokTChipeater]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
As you can see from the distinct lack of a 'z' in generalise that I am not even American.

Then your country has already ratified the Convention. Did you know this?


Nowhere in this thread did anybody say that it's OK to hit children.

Nowhere in this thread did anybody say they hit their children.

Nowhere in this thread did anybody say that their children belong to them...

I don't suppose the Ku Klux Klan ever said in a public forum that it was okay to lynch negroes, or admitted to doing it, or claimed that black people still belonged to white ones after the Emancipation. But you may be sure they still believed those things, and behaved as if they were true whenever they could get away with it. And if you listened to what they actually did say, you'd hear those sentiments and beliefs still expressed, only in code.

I'm not comparing child-beaters to the KKK, but it takes no special talent at reading between the lines to feel profound disturbance at such statements as


'I will raise my child as I see fit.'

'The government has no business telling people how to raise their kids.'

'I say leave the parents to raise the children as they see fit; it's only for eighteen years.'

Only eighteen years... what kind of crime must a grown-up commit, to be sent to gaol for eighteen years? A gaol with warders who are twice the size and weight of the inmates and regularly beat them up?

And as for the American exceptionalism part, did you read what the OP posted?


How can a topic even be discussed with someone who simply discredits (in a big way, pretending we hits kids and stuff) anybody who disagrees with him/her?

You call this content-free alarm-fest a discussion? Not one of you has even read the Convention. You, for example, couldn't even be bothered to click the link I gave you; you betrayed yourself by saying you hadn't 'read the full article'. It wasn't an 'article'; it was the Convention itself.

People on this thread are just venting about some insane, tendentious reading of the Convention on a crackpot conspiracy-theory web site. Good grief, you actually thought one of its provisions was that there should be more spent on child welfare than on defence! What were you thinking? How could any sane person imagine that a provision like that would make it through a General Assembly vote?

Did you know that every member-state of the UN has ratified the convention except the United States and... Somalia? This includes your country - unless you're Somali. Did you notice when it happened? Did you feel any pain? What rights and privileges do you feel in want of now that you are bound by the Convention?

Do you even know why the US refuses to ratify it?


The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it. Opposition to the Convention is in part due to what are seen as potential conflicts with the Constitution and because of opposition by some political and religious conservatives. President Barack Obama has described the failure to ratify the Convention as 'embarrassing' and has promised to review this.

source

More here on why America opposes the treaty - if you can be bothered to click the link.

I have read the convention; in fact, I was instrumental in disseminating and explaining its provisions to children in my country by means of a freely-distributed children's magazine I helped produce. My country's Ministry of Education was one of the distributors of the magazine. As part of our source material, we used this leaflet (in PDF format), which is designed to be read and understood by children. If you find the full Convention too difficult, maybe a glance at it will help.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Then your country has already ratified the Convention. Did you know this?


No I didn't, thanks for sharing.



Originally posted by Astyanax

I don't suppose the Ku Klux Klan ever said in a public forum that it was okay to lynch negroes, or admitted to doing it, or claimed that black people still belonged to white ones after the Emancipation. But you may be sure they still believed those things, and behaved as if they were true whenever they could get away with it.


Look, I believe that most parents will do what is in their childs best interests. Now I know there are some bad apples, as in everything. On the contrary I do not believe the government will always do what is in the childs best interests. Thats my viewpoint.




'I will raise my child as I see fit.'


Now keeping in mind I believe that most parents will do what is in their childs best interests, I don't see anything wrong with that. Especially if the alternative is "I will raise my child as the government sees fit".




'The government has no business telling people how to raise their kids.'


Once again keeping in mind my beliefs, there is nothing wrong with this.

Perhaps I am wrong (even naive maybe) in thinking most parents will do what's in their childs best interests. However, in my experience this has shown to be true.


Now I will admit I still haven't read the convention. If however this does apply:

...the child can have a governmental review of any decision that they disagree with.
..the government can over-ride parental decisions.

then I don't want to read it. I already disagree with it in principal.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
While in theory I support MOST of these steps, Obama seems a bit ageist to me - like he believes youth are more valuable than adults.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


Here are some extracts from the convention:

‘Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,’

Taking due account of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child, Recognizing the importance of international co-operation for improving the living conditions of children in every country, in particular in the developing countries,

Article 5
States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.


Article 9

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.

I would urge members to at least read the things they get so worked up about.

Once again whenever the rights of a minority or those who are not in a position of power are put forward in such conventions - there is an hysterical backlash.

What next! Women get the vote... Children banned from pit....end slavery!... The worlds gone mad


If protecting a child from the customs and religious views of the parents ends female circumcision, and child brides then it can only do good. Or perhaps these are fundamental rights we only hold for our own children.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
There is already a mechanism in place to protect children from abuse in the United States (and most other civilized countries): It's called Social Services. You're acting like people right now can do anything they want to their kids and get away with it; that's simply not the case.

All this convention realistically does is take away the fundamental rights of the parents to instill morality and ethics into their children.

This convention may be needed in places where there are no mechanisms in place to protect children from abuse (though such places probably wouldn't ratify it, anyway), but it definitely isn't necessary in the United States.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hagalaz
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 

If protecting a child from the customs and religious views of the parents ends female circumcision, and child brides then it can only do good. Or perhaps these are fundamental rights we only hold for our own children.


Female circumcision and child brides are not, nor ever have been, legal in the United States or most other civilized countries. Any country where this is common practice won't ratify it, anyway.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidLight
 


Really? From what I see, it does no such thing.

Article 14 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion): Children have the right to think and believe what they want and to practice their religion, as long as they are not stopping other people from enjoying their rights. Parents should help guide their children in these matters. The Convention respects the rights and duties of parents in providing religious and moral guidance to their children. Religious groups around the world have expressed support for the Convention, which indicates that it in no way prevents parents from bringing their children up within a religious tradition. At the same time, the Convention recognizes that as children mature and are able to form their own views, some may question certain religious practices or cultural traditions. The Convention supports children's right to examine their beliefs, but it also states that their right to express their beliefs implies respect for the rights and freedoms of others.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join