It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


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

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

The UN will wait however long is necessary to get control of all children , globally, without exception.

That may be your personal opinion and I respect that but so far you have not made a convincing case that that is a fact.

The US is one of the last strongholds on which the family should be based.

I wouldn't know about that. I myself am an American living in a country that has long ago signed the convention. I'm gonna be a father any year now and I can't say that there is a fundamental difference as to how the families are viewed here. I find such statements problematic... Mostly such black-and-white assertions aren't the hallmarks of informed opinion.

Maybe it is easier to hold such views when you haven't lived abroad and the whole rest of the world seems so totally different. But it's not, in most respects. I don't really see how one should argue against such a statement.

So I'll just say: Poland is the only country in the world where families still enjoy their traditional position. It is the last stronghold of real families and the world should be based on them.

What is one gonna say against that? Well, whatever.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:40 AM
It's a toughie.

For example, if you hear piteous screams and cries from your neighbor's children being thrashed and beaten cruelly, should you shut your ears and justify your apathy with 'parents having absolute right to decide what happens in their own home and kids', and that no one should interfere?

On the other hand, if the child stubbornly insists on his right not to eat vegetables, which is detrimental to his health, and forced to eat them by his concern parents, should the State and UN step in to protect the child's right not to be forced against his will?

Extremities no doubt, but it will be extremities that will test the limits of any laws on how far it can go, and extremities DO happen.

Personally, I say scrapped all laws and treaties.

The family unit is precious, for it is the building block of societies and empires. Without that unit, there will be no humanity, let alone a tribal village.

Rather, spend time, cerebral tissues and money to educate our next generations on HOW TO BE GOOD PARENTS instead. Those getting married, or diagnosed as pregnant, should be sent to centres on how to teach, guide and protect their own kids.

Without such enlightened education, parents will only fall back on their own life experiences, be it their own childhood or adulthood, to groom or terrorise the child.

Those who have great experiences will groom kids to become leaders in the economy, socia-political arena. Those who had bad experiences will only groom future pyschopaths! :-P

No one should be left behind, kid or adult, as we progress and evolve, and proper enlightened education will be the key, not unweldly and confusing laws/treaties, more so by the UN, a corrupt and well known inefficient and ineffective institution.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:45 AM
Once the globalists take your children, from right inside of your house, you will probably never see them again! The CPS in the US is corrupt to the core. They have the power to march into your house, take pictures, question your children about who knows what because they are separated while questioned, charges fabricated etc. I know that the caseworkers carry way too many case loads, but this only adds to the problem. It's just easier to take your children, for whatever reason, and let the courts figure it out.

What do you think is happening to your children while awaiting the court cases? They are placed in foster care (bad), separated from their siblings (bad- they are not able to "make up" a story that has been told to them to use) mistreated by strangers, etc.

The foster families are not checked out or visited or regulated at all, many of them do it for the extra money they will receive.

I know how they do this because it happened to a friend of mine. Her 3 little toddlers were taken from her little by little until they were gone. Now they are of age and have come back to her and you do not want to know what goes on in foster care!

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:07 AM
The Badman report uses Articles 12 and 29 of the UNCRC to justify registering the estimated 80,000 homeschooling families in Britain, forcing them to provide annual reports regarding their homeschool, granting government officials the right to enter the home and interview the children alone as well as reserving the choice of curriculum to the state.

]badman report

Case Filed Against Sweden Over Seized Homeschooled Child

ADF attorneys have sent inquiries to Swedish authorities regarding the Johanssons but Swedish authorities have cited the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child to defend their action. The Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden has refused to review a lower court’s December 2009 ruling in Johansson v. Gotland Social Services that found the government was within its rights to seize the child. The lower court cited the fact that Dominic had not been vaccinated as a reason to remove him permanently from his parents. The court also repeatedly claimed homeschooled students performed more poorly academically and were not as well socialized

Brussels Journal Editor Threatened with Prosecution over Homeschooling

he fact that a growing group of children seems to be escaping from the government’s influence clearly bothers the authorities. Three years ago a new school bill was introduced. The new bill refers to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and it obliges homeschooling parents to fill out a questionaire and sign an official “declaration of homeschooling” in which they agree to school their children “respecting the respect [sic] for the fundamental human rights and the cultural values of the child itself and of others.” The declaration does not specify what “respecting the respect for the fundamental human rights and the cultural values of the child itself and of others” means. It states, however, that government inspectors decide about this and adds – and here is the crux of the matter – that if the parents receive two negative reports from the inspectors they will have to send their child to an official government recognized school.

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:16 AM

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by ohioriver

First of all - these are recommendations, NOT laws or enforceable in any way, and the message is being misrepresented.

Second of all, your first of all assumption is incorrect.

A legally binding instrument

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights—civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. In 1989, world leaders decided that children needed a special convention just for them because people under 18 years old often need special care and protection that adults do not. The leaders also wanted to make sure that the world recognized that children have human rights too.


Note the words "A legally binding instrument". For the verbally challenged, that mean a contract that is enforceable under law.

That comes straight from the UN's mouth.

Only signatories to the agreement would be "legally bound" - the available mechanisms for enforcement include a) a slap on the wrist, and b) getting turfed from the contract.


posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:16 AM

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
It's a toughie.

For example, if you hear piteous screams and cries from your neighbor's children being thrashed and beaten cruelly, should you shut your ears and justify your apathy with 'parents having absolute right to decide what happens in their own home and kids', and that no one should interfere?

No of course not , when did we become a world that lets children on our own doorstep suffer. Laws are there already to protect, and yes it does take a village of decent human beings to raise likewise.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by BANANAMONTANA]

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:19 AM
If you see a child suffer , what do you think you should do? have we become so immune to life and out of focus that we dont step in to protect the weak.

This treaty has merits yes, however I will be interested to see if the same Senators if they are anti gun use the same treaty to enable gun bans.

Following the recent ruling that confessions of a child can be used in evidence against him under a threat of rape to death, nothing would surprise me anymore.

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by BANANAMONTANA

That's a very interesting link your provided. I will have to read through the whole afterwards. But just some preliminary 2 cents from me:

the author of that report is a moron. This is indeed a case of someone using the convention in order to shut down homeschooling.

But nevertheless, I believe that the author of that report is misinterpreting the convention. I do not see how article 12 or 29 can be used in order to shut down home-schooling; IMHO the Badman-author is a complete moron who cites the convention in order to further his own agenda, not the spirit of the convention.

Article 12

1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

Article 29

1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:

(a) The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

(e) The development of respect for the natural environment.

2. No part of the present article or article 28 shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, subject always to the observance of the principle set forth in paragraph 1 of the present article and to the requirements that the education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State.

Now I do see how the convention would strenghten the case of a child that is forced to be homechooled by his parents but doesn't want to. He would have the right to be heard in court.

But I absolutely can not see where the author of the Badman report has got the idea that the convention can be used as a blanket argument against all homeschooling or homeschooling per se.

Don't confuse the report with those people that are willing to use it to make gains in their own agenda. To be quite honest, I think the convention totally forbids any blanket prohibition against home-schooling.

I'll read more during my break. Thank you very much for the link. I like to challenge my dogmas :-)

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

yes badman didn't get his legislation , he nearly did.

the problem is, some idiots can, and do read it the wrong way.It took one year of fighting badman. I think if Labour had come in again they may have had it ratified. This then would mean taking each case to the EU courts to fight it

needs to be very explicit or you get t*ts like badman raking up mud.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by BANANAMONTANA]

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:05 AM
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

The author of the Badman report may well be a moron, or a Bad Man, but it could still be legal precedent for the application of the Convention. If it was applied that way in Sweden, it's that much easier for it to be applied that way in Sweden or in other countries that have signed the Convention.

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:09 AM
reply to post by oniongrass

It's just that I don't and can't see how articles 12 or 29 can be construed as a basis for forbidding home-schooling. It may well be that people claim that it is, but I quoted the relevant parts above and IMHO anyone who cites these articles in order to forbid homeschooling is disenginous. And I'm not even that big of a fan of homeschooling.

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:54 AM
Well, overall I'm against this thing but one little thing in that isn't so bad:

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

That's a good thing, you realize that right?

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:13 AM
No it is not a good thing. Teaching the Faith of the generations of the family is one of the obligations that parents and extended family members have, to teach the children right from wrong according to the family history that goes back centuries.

The child can learn about other beliefs but should be able to make an informed opinion when he/she comes of age.

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:24 AM

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Well, overall I'm against this thing but one little thing in that isn't so bad:

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

That's a good thing, you realize that right?

C'mon guys, wake up...can't you see this little sleight of hand insertion is meant to break up family bonds?

The only way for NWO to win is to destroy the family without the procreation process destroyed, and then to separate the naive and impressionable immature inexperience child and the parents with so called 'rights', and eventually replace itself as the paterfamilas, the way commie Mao tried during the cultural revolution.

Don't we ever learn from history's mistakes and tragedies?

[edit on 23-8-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:50 AM
Gee, why even have states, or even a country if we allow the UN to make the rules? Why even try to be a sovereign person, state or country if this is to be the outcome? Are we to do away with local, state and Federal governments? Corruption today at the local, state and Federal levels is bad enough to deal with, if we sign a treaty with the UN, how do you deal with the corruption in that? I think it`s bad enough having to answer to the three governments we have now, let alone the UN. And we think our rights are going fast now, wait till a treaty like this is signed.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by FiatLux]

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:13 PM

Originally posted by rusethorcain
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]

They owe a duty of care that is why, if the child is removed into foster care as deemed fit by the state as governed they owe a duty of care to the child.
they failed here and it is not a one off.

The laws are in place already to protect but as we can see in some cases the child is in more danger, this child was it seems exposed to sexual abuse 600 times in foster care.

"Illuminati" and my head is in the sand? oh please

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:58 PM
Now that I've read the whole Convention on the Rights of the Child, I will state my opinions:

I find nothing in the convention which would contradict the generally accepted views, policies, or practices already in effect in the United States. As far as I can tell, the opposition to signing the Convention comes primarily from the economic philosophy of greed. By this I mean, "If we call education and healthcare a right, then the funding thereof is no longer optional, but mandatory. I refuse to have my money taxed so as to insure a decent life for my neighbor's children or some child on the other side of the world."

It comes down to money and taxes. For the last 30 years or so, the US has been gripped by a philosophy that taxes are evil, and moreover that no human activity should be performed unless some "enterprising" individual stands to make a fortune off of the activity.

I grew up in a time before this "hyper-capitalism" gripped the nation. Public schools were fully funded by states without the use of state lotteries as fund raisers, which invariably and disproportionately shifted the tax burden to the poor, while at the same time making a lot of money for the private entities running the lotteries.

My personal philosophy happens to be that some things should be done by, within, and for society as a whole even if no one gets fabulously wealthy.

For far too long the politicians of this country have run their campaigns on the platform of ignorance and fear. Rather than explain the realities of taxes and their proper uses in society, they take the easy ignorance promoting position that taxes are evil, while at the same time throwing up smoke screens of fear and paranoia about what "they" are planning to "do to you." "Vote for me", they say, "I will protect you and your hard-earned money from the evil schemes of the evil other." They're taking us for a ride folks, and not to anywhere good.

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by pthena

I agree that children should have good food and a good opportunity at education. Those things were easier back in the 60's. We were a much richer country, not drowning in debt, and there was a population of women schoolteachers who could not or did not become physicians, lawyers, stockbrokers, etc. Schools were good, at least mine was. Not luxurious but solid.

Now it's much harder to provide the same thing. Teachers are hard to deal with, and perhaps not as qualified as they were 40 years ago. There are tons of programs and policies, like No Child Left Behind, that impose a lot of needless bureacracy on schools that were already fine. I don't know if things have actually improved in the schools that were not fine.

Meanwhile our schools have to meet a harder target. US kids are no longer much protected from worldwide competition. There's no longer a factory or union job waiting for the kid who just didn't like school.

I don't know the solution for schools but I doubt that more UN involvement is the answer. More programs isn't what we need. And I don't think the document prohibits the use of lotteries to fund school systems -- which is indeed a tax on mathematically uneducated people.

And some of the other provisions are not really US standard, for example my state allows corporal punishment in the home. And parents are allowed to take their kids to church or pass on their own religious views. Except for school activities, I think the US standard is still that kids are supposed to listen to their parents until they are of age. And I think that's about the best way. It promotes diversity of views and experiences. It gives family traditions a chance to make it into the next generation. It produces a generation that governments cannot count on to toe the line -- and that's good.

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:21 PM
I think it doesn't matter if the treaty says good or bad things.

I just think I don't care what the U.N. has to say about my family.

It seems like a lot of the "adults" here are down with having Big Daddy watch everyone ELSE... but when the time came that Big Daddy was coming down on your head, you'd realize how wrong it is.

How about people just pay attention to what they themselves are doing and do right as best as you can. If you want to save other people personally, do it. The people of the world are my family and I will help anyone the best that I can.

And you can even advise me regarding my son's raising.

But if you dare try to enforce your beliefs on me or my child, you will be ignored.

What is with the intelligent and eloquent people on here being okay with a group of people telling you that their beliefs are better than yours? Especially since one of those beliefs they wish to enforce on you is that you aren't allowed to force your beliefs on your own child!!!

Mr. Eloquent, interesting that you say that the Government is like the adult and the adult is like the child... because in this case, it sounds like the adult is contradicting himself.

Regardless, even if my beliefs are wrong and those that would be enforced by the U.N. treaty are right, it is wrong for us to go along with the treaty because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." (The first part of the First Amendment). The treaty cannot override the amendment. The First Amendment must be amended in order for the treaty to take precedence. Therefore, I can tell my son that God exists as an all-powerful force so as to give him the words to be able to express what he may feel at the very least.

But then again.... most of us aren't U.S. citizens but we are human resources, slaves, to the District which can do and say whatever it wants but keeps order by allowing us to keep believing that the Constitution is for us...

But regardless of what piece of paper you throw in my face, I'm not going to sit here and let anyone tell me that they have power of me.

Unless I grant you power over me, you have nothing. You can flog me, throw me, hang me, decapitate me, drug me, torture me, defile me - whatever you do to me, you cannot take my mind from me.

And you could take my son, but you can't take his mind from him.

It will all catch up to you.

So, for now, I give a respectful double-bird in the direction of any documents and accept only my natural-born God-given rights as a human being.

And in turn, I submit myself to the Lord Jesus Christ to be the judge of me.

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
No it is not a good thing....

The child can learn about other beliefs but should be able to make an informed opinion when he/she comes of age.

The age of reason is eight.

What about children who commit heinous crimes and are charged as adults?

Should murder be the only time a child has the same rights and treatment as an adult?

If they are not even capable of deciding a religion or picking a faith the same as any adult, how can they be guilty of knowingly committing a crime at this age?

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in