Senators line up to tell U.N. to leave kids alone 31 already committed to oppose treaty giving world

reply to post by Krzyzmo


First of all have you read the treaty in question?
What part of the Constitution are you exactly giving away by signing this treaty?

The problems with the treaty as I see

the terms are open to interpretation and not in explicit text, this enables a person, the state, or others to define on an ongoing basis what the terms mean.

Whilst it is a noble treaty it can and has been used against parents.

Children are raised by the parents, they do not belong to the state nor should the rights of the parent be usurped by a treaty.

Can I ask what parts of the constitution does it protect ? have you all read the treaty and placed it beside the constitution and read both together ?

Can I also ask if you have read the views of professors and lawyers regarding this matter?

thanks

Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA


the terms are open to interpretation and not in explicit text, this enables a person, the state, or others to define on an ongoing basis what the terms mean.

While I understand the feeling behind this thought, I do not agree. Can you point me to even one article that you fear has the potential of being redefined nefariously?

It is still up to the individual courts of the individual countries to interpret what the treaty says. Basically what this treaty says is that no signatory country may introduce laws that are harmful to children.

Whilst it is a noble treaty it can and has been used against parents.

If this is true you should be able to

i) show when, where and how it was used against parents (this is a disenginous lie and you know that you're talking way out of your league here). If not - please provide a case where this treaty was the basis of jurisdictional action against parents. please do.

ii) show which article exactly can be used against parents.

If you would have read the treaty, you might have seen for yourself the articles that strenghten the rights of the parents, i.e. the article that forbids the seperation of child and parent without due process of law that is in conformity with the treaty.
The treaty actually forbids signatory countries to just randomly seperate kids from their parents. The treaty explicitly states that it is a childs right not to be seperated from its parents.

Children are raised by the parents, they do not belong to the state nor should the rights of the parent be usurped by a treaty.

The treaty does not say that children belong to the state nor does it usurp any powers held by parents. It simply asserts that children have human rights too and that signatory countries have to respect that. Think of it as a human rights bill explictly for children - as that was the motivation since there has been a long debate on how much of the traditional human rights can be claimed to pertain to children.

Can I ask what parts of the constitution does it protect ? have you all read the treaty and placed it beside the constitution and read both together ?

Can I ask you what part of the constitution it negates?

The claim is that the convention is unconstitutional. Yet no one in this thread has so far been able to point to any article that is in conflict with the constitution.
Do you believe that the constitution entails an article that states that children have no rights? If not then it is not in conflict, as establishing what rights children have is the sole point of the convention.

Can I also ask if you have read the views of professors and lawyers regarding this matter?

I have already cited a paper by a professor who has studied how the convention has helped to fight corporal punishment of children by the state (not by parents) in third world countries.

All that the skeptic side has brought up so far are 30 senators that are up for re-election and need publicity badly.

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by Common Good

 

Now, why doesn't that same rule apply to Afghans or Iraqi's???

Why doesn't US get the h--l out of their countries and let Afghans and Iraqi's police and run their own countries???

Oh no, America has the right to interfere anywhere in the world, to bomb and kill at will whenever it wants - the world is there to serve America, right?

But NO-ONE has the right to interfere with America, right?

The only people who have the right to police Afghans are Afghans. End of story.

The only people who have the right to police Iraqis are Iraqis. End of story.

Or does hypocrisy rule OK for US?



[edit on 22-8-2010 by wcitizen]

Good comeback, better point.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


my prior posting and your own research i ask you the converse where does it prove you are right and maybe you can spend time convincing me.

reply to post by Fatality



Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children’s Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights ‘Over to International Community’

Washington (CNSNews.com) - Sen. Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) said that if President Barack Obama gets his way and the Senate ratifies the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the precedent would be set to place parental rights under the jurisdiction of the international community

“We believe we need to take clear action here in Congress to protect the rights of parents to raise their children," DeMint said at a Wednesday panel discussion. "This treaty would, in fact, establish a precedent that those rights have been given over to the international community

“It submits our federal laws, our national laws to this treaty,” DeMint told CNSNews.com. “And the fact is that we don’t know exactly how it’s going to run, but we know how bureaucracy works. Once a precedent is established and we have yielded control, we know that it will continue to grow. So the precedent is almost worse than the immediate details.”

www.cnsnews.com...

So ask your Senator for a guarantee this won't tread on parental rights, that is if they read the treaty of course. Don't ask your Congressman, cause they can't vote on this, even though it can change law.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Krzyzmo]

reply to post by BANANAMONTANA


None of my business, but what sort of convincing do you want? Anything that affords more rights to and protects children is a good thing. As it stands now, they are little more than "property".

It is the parents who sometimes leave a lot to be desired and we all know those parents.
Yet we protect the sovereign right of parents over their children no matter how bad they may be???

We don't want to know what goes on behind closed doors and to a certain extent I don't want to know...BUT we should make every adult right available to children and not make it easy to abuse, assault or neglect them.

This "factual" avoidance and siding with parents over children exclusively is why we often hear about horrible unthinkable atrocities happening to children after the fact and when it is too late to protect them.

Originally posted by Krzyzmo
reply to post by Fatality

 

Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children’s Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights ‘Over to International Community’

Washington (CNSNews.com) - Sen. Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) said that if President Barack Obama gets his way and the Senate ratifies the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the precedent would be set to place parental rights under the jurisdiction of the international community

“We believe we need to take clear action here in Congress to protect the rights of parents to raise their children," DeMint said at a Wednesday panel discussion. "This treaty would, in fact, establish a precedent that those rights have been given over to the international community

“It submits our federal laws, our national laws to this treaty,” DeMint told CNSNews.com. “And the fact is that we don’t know exactly how it’s going to run, but we know how bureaucracy works. Once a precedent is established and we have yielded control, we know that it will continue to grow. So the precedent is almost worse than the immediate details.”

www.cnsnews.com...

So ask your congressman for a guarantee this won't tread on parental rights, that is if they read the treaty of course.

Funny when Hillary said "It takes a village" we all thought it was a truly wonderful sentiment....but then she is a white girl....and I guess only pearls come out of her mouth - somehow when Obama says it ...it gets a communist ring to it

There's something about those "pro family" senators that irks me.. I couldn't put my finger on it.. But I can now..

Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain of Arizona, Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Sens. Mike Crapo and James Risch of Idaho, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts of Kansas, Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, Sens. Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri, Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Sens. Tom Coburn and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Sens. Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Sens. Robert Bennett and Orrin Hatch of Utah and Sens. John Barrasso and Michael Enzi of Wyoming.

How pro-family are these people when the occasion is not a knee-jerk anti-UN photo-op to get some good press for re-election?

John Ensign, Senator from Nevada, refuses to resign after confessing to an extramarital affair with a married staffer, claiming she was trying to extort him.[13] Later, it was learned he was attempting to pay her and her husband off through his parents and finding them jobs.

......

David Vitter, junior Senator from Louisiana, became one of the few high-profile politicians to be implicated as a client of "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey.[50]

....

Jim Bunn: With his success due in great part to support from the Christian Coalition, Bunn won his congressional seat, then immediately ditched his wife (and mother of his five children), married a staffer, and put his new wife on the state payroll for the unheard-of salary of $97,500.

......

Coburn: Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) Uses Religious “Privilege” to Hide What He Knows About John Ensign’s Sex Scandal

.....

Seems not all of them are that worried about families when it is i) not election time and ii) not your family that is concerned but their own.

Well. Publicity stunt, much?






[edit on 23-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by rusethorcain


The government is the problem. Here is just one example from Aug 5th.

Ex-foster child gets $30M in Calif sex abuse case

2010-08-05 18:19:00 PDT San Jose, CA 95110, United States — (08-05) 18:19 PDT San Jose, Calif. (AP) --

A Northern California boy who was the victim of more than 600 sexual abuse acts while in foster care has been awarded $30 million by a jury, his lawyer said.

Stephen Estey, who represented the former foster child in his lawsuit against Giarretto Institute said his client, now 25, broke into tears when the verdict was read Wednesday in a Santa Clara County court. He said it's the largest award in California this year for a single-person sex abuse case

articles.sfgate.com...

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Krzyzmo]

reply to post by Krzyzmo


Re: Above post,
Tragic yes, but how exactly is the government the problem here?

There is a branch of "Illuminati" into sexual sadism, and I don't have to tell you what party they hail from, who are accused of using BOYSTOWN as their own private orchard, for youngsters. You are not telling me anything new when it comes to abusing children.

This is not "the government" but elements of power, people in government abusing their authority. Forget about family members, another story altogether, this is abuses taking place BY government officials, (oddly yet predominantly belonging to one certain political affiliation) who have a predilection for young boys.

I wish you didn't make me have to say it.

I have threads on it.






[edit on 23-8-2010 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

 

my prior posting and your own research i ask you the converse where does it prove you are right and maybe you can spend time convincing me.

Look I obviously have read the treaty and I am familiar with the constitution. I don't see any possible conflict. It's not that I am lazy and don't want to do what you asked for; I simply don't see how this should be done. I don't know how I can prove to you that this convention and the constitution are not in conflict. I find it hard to prove negatives. That's why it's more logical to aks the people who see a conflict to point it out, then I could make an argument that there is none.

There's no way to prove a negative as "they are not in conflict". Proving that they are in conflict, OTO (given that they really are) would be very easy.

The thing you linked to from Demint is very misleading. As I said the convention does not establish a multilateral legal body with any authority. The only proactive part of the treaty is the establishment of a commission that would right annual reports about the situation of children's rights in the world - just as the human rights commission does.

The human rights convention and its commission is a very good analogy. They condemned the US for what they did in Abu Ghraib since it was against human rights. But they had neither the power nor the authority to sanction the US, or to punish them, or to indict them, or to change the existing laws or to change the opionion of the Bush torture junta. They could point out violations, but they could not stop them. The idea behind the convention is similiar and their power would be the same.

there's really no proactive part to the treaty. It is solely establishing an international norm very much like the international norms of human rights. Many people have profited greatly in front of the courts by invoking the human rights convention, while the courts lost much of their power to violate human rights arbitrarily.

Being skeptic about internationalism is a good thing. But skepticism should not be a blanket view; it is always important to study the individual material being discussed.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by BANANAMONTANA

 

None of my business, but what sort of convincing do you want? Anything that affords more rights to and protects children is a good thing. As it stands now, they are little more than "property".

It is the parents who sometimes leave a lot to be desired and we all know those parents.
Yet we protect the sovereign right of parents over their children no matter how bad they may be???

We don't want to know what goes on behind closed doors and to a certain extent I don't want to know...BUT we should make every adult right available to children and not make it easy to abuse, assault or neglect them.

This "factual" avoidance and siding with parents over children exclusively is why we often hear about horrible unthinkable atrocities happening to children after the fact and when it is too late to protect them.

I think you missed the point of my post.

I dont ascribe to fear led " the parents are eating their children" back door legislation.

You have not ratified this treaty, in europe it is being used against parents for homeschooling...

now please point out to me where I said children should not be protected.

and when did children become property? and why should you or anyone else know what goes on behind doors apart from your own?

I am confused what are you asking for?

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

 

my prior posting and your own research i ask you the converse where does it prove you are right and maybe you can spend time convincing me.

Look I obviously have read the treaty and I am familiar with the constitution. I don't see any possible conflict. It's not that I am lazy and don't want to do what you asked for; I simply don't see how this should be done. I don't know how I can prove to you that this convention and the constitution are not in conflict. I find it hard to prove negatives. That's why it's more logical to aks the people who see a conflict to point it out, then I could make an argument that there is none.

There's no way to prove a negative as "they are not in conflict". Proving that they are in conflict, OTO (given that they really are) would be very easy.

The thing you linked to from Demint is very misleading. As I said the convention does not establish a multilateral legal body with any authority. The only proactive part of the treaty is the establishment of a commission that would right annual reports about the situation of children's rights in the world - just as the human rights commission does.

The human rights convention and its commission is a very good analogy. They condemned the US for what they did in Abu Ghraib since it was against human rights. But they had neither the power nor the authority to sanction the US, or to punish them, or to indict them, or to change the existing laws or to change the opionion of the Bush torture junta. They could point out violations, but they could not stop them. The idea behind the convention is similiar and their power would be the same.

there's really no proactive part to the treaty. It is solely establishing an international norm very much like the international norms of human rights. Many people have profited greatly in front of the courts by invoking the human rights convention, while the courts lost much of their power to violate human rights arbitrarily.

Being skeptic about internationalism is a good thing. But skepticism should not be a blanket view; it is always important to study the individual material being discussed.

i am lazy .. touche

I do know this has been used against homeschooling in europe + a database of all children in the UK which was unplugged weeks ago as it in rather an ironic fashion breached the privacy of children but that did not matter to the UK government at the time. It was also found to be a potential for back door ID cards of the future.

I did not say treaty was a bad thing, but i do think that legislation that filters from treaties such as this, at times has an adverse effect and if it is not explicit it is open for the judge to rule as they see fit or the case of the UK how a city or county council will see fit.

I was curious how it might be read in the future and how it may impact homeschooling... just one example.






[edit on 23-8-2010 by BANANAMONTANA]

Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by BANANAMONTANA

 

None of my business, but what sort of convincing do you want? Anything that affords more rights to and protects children is a good thing. As it stands now, they are little more than "property".

It is the parents who sometimes leave a lot to be desired and we all know those parents.
Yet we protect the sovereign right of parents over their children no matter how bad they may be???

We don't want to know what goes on behind closed doors and to a certain extent I don't want to know...BUT we should make every adult right available to children and not make it easy to abuse, assault or neglect them.

This "factual" avoidance and siding with parents over children exclusively is why we often hear about horrible unthinkable atrocities happening to children after the fact and when it is too late to protect them.

I think you missed the point of my post.

I dont ascribe to fear led " the parents are eating their children" back door legislation.

You have not ratified this treaty, in europe it is being used against parents for homeschooling...

now please point out to me where I said children should not be protected.

and when did children become property? and why should you or anyone else know what goes on behind doors apart from your own?

I am confused what are you asking for?

Just a little heads up.

Are you telling me that conservatives who for years pushed through legislation stripping rights away from adults in order to "protect the children" are upset over a treaty that is trying to protect the children.

I suppose the difference could be that this actually does try to protect the children while all the conservative back legislation was always in reality a way to censor adults while attempt to make religious beliefs into law.


[edit on 23-8-2010 by Kaploink]

Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA

i am lazy .. touche

We all are. I didn't want to attack you I'm just searching for an asnwer to the question how we can see this so differently when we are looking at the same thing.

I do know this has been used against homeschooling in europe + a database of all children in the UK which was unplugged weeks ago as it in rather an ironic fashion breached the privacy of children but that did not matter to the UK government at the time. It was also found to be a potential for back door ID cards of the future.

You need to better explain to me how this has anything to do with the convention. Or provide me with a link that mentions the connection? I do not see where this touches the subject of the convention. As I said the convention is not something the government can just cite as a motivation for actions. that's not the way it works. pertaining to the government, it is almost solely a legislative issue, not an issue of the excutive.

I did not say treaty was a bad thing, but i do think that legislation that filters from treaties such as this, at times has an adverse effect and if it is not explicit it is open for the judge to rule as they see fit or the case of the UK how a city or county council will see fit.

I get that. But in order to see that we'll have to let it play out. Should it indeed be part of a nefarious plot any and all countries can simply drop out of it.

I was curious how it might be read in the future and how it may impact homeschooling... just one example.

The convention does not say that home.schooling is bad or that a kid has a right to visit a public school.

In fact, as I pointed out, the convention establishes that it is the fundamental right of child to be raised by its parents and that any seperation forced by the state must have valid legal reasons for it.
So one could make the case that the convention actually strengthens the views of those parents who want to provide their kids education on their own (given that they are able to)...

I understand your reservations. I just think that the dangers you see come from a very different direction than this convention.






[edit on 23-8-2010 by BANANAMONTANA]

[edit on 23-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by Common Good
WTF is this world comming to?

LEAVE OUR FAMILIES ALONE.

The only people who need to police Americans, are other Americans.

End of Story.

Just a thought, but wouldnt it be better if Americans (people in general actually), well, policed themselves? Meaning, every citizen having respect for others? Until all humans enjoy a full meal, and a roof over their head and clean water, we will continue to have to have our Governmental Parents take care of us. We seem to be too stupid to do it ourselves.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

Of course it does not mention sex ed for the children! That would make them look bad! The UN will wait however long is necessary to get control of all children , globally, without exception. The US is one of the last strongholds on which the family should be based.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


ok that nice interesting [ to me ] reply went belly up on a refresh ..why because I have too many windows open and forgot where I was.

I'll be back, I dont as a rule think that there is a grand plot, but I do think that idiots under the Labour Government and others did and can use this.