A Line In The Sand?

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET
Thu Feb 5 17:08:21 MST 2009

         NOTHING raises my blood pressure faster than unelected, 
unaccountable bureaucrats thinking they're anointed with powers to 
micro-manage everybody's personal lives! - JAQ

WND Exclusive

United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object

Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

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.

Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of 
<http://parentalrights.org/>ParentalRights.org, chairman of the 
<http://www.hslda.org/Default.asp?bhcp=1>Home School Legal Defense 
Association and chancellor of <http://www.phc.edu/>Patrick Henry College. 
He told WND that under the 
<http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm>U.N. Convention on the Rights 
of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the 
government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.

"It's definitely on our doorstep," he said. "The left wants to make the 
Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as 
stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you 
begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into 
treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election."

The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but 
not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized 
government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's 
been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to 
it by international law.

by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the 
U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' 
efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily 
would be enforced against parents.

The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural 
and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best 
interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." While the treaty 
states that parents or legal guardians "have primary responsibility for the 
upbringing and development of the child," Farris said government will 
ultimately determine whether parents' decisions are in their children's 
best interest. The treaty is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has 
enforcement powers.

According to the 
Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:
    * 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 
    * 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.
"Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the 
responsibilities shift from parents to the government," Farris said. "The 
implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no 
longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their 
children or having the right to direct their children."


Michael Farris

The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in 
every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris 
said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day 
decisions about their children's lives.

"If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were 
low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your 
decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he 
said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook 
account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to 
determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child."

He continued, "If you think your child should go to church three times a 
week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets 
to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the 
frequency of church attendance."

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for 
implementation of the policies.

Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification 
of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because "the 
political world has changed."

At a <http://debate.waldenu.edu/debate-transcript>Walden University 
presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.

"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless 
land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the 
United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, 
and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate 
for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.

Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just 
before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.

In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged 
Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they 
asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been 
signed by the U.S. but not ratified.

Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the 
statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be 
acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.

While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of 
the treaty will face fierce opposition.

"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."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20090205/83d96c5d/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 35ce2b.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3460 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20090205/83d96c5d/attachment.jpg 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 35ce3b.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 73612 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20090205/83d96c5d/attachment-0001.jpg 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 35ce4a.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20776 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20090205/83d96c5d/attachment-0002.jpg 

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list