Homeschooling parents hear much about parental rights from homschooling organizations, and how the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child will be used against them in their homes. What we usually don’t hear is what the people in favor of the Convention think about that opposition.
The following linked PDF file gives an overview (minus the workshop that went with it) from the point of view of people in favor of the Convention.
I find it hard to be either 100% in favor of the Convention (because legislation can go in strange directions), or 100% against the Convention (because there are practices concerning children that I think need to change). But isn’t that the way it usually goes?
This overview includes the “non-self-executing treaties” referred to earlier.
Mobilizing Communities for Ratification, 18 – 20 May 2006
Why is the United States one of only two nations in the entire world that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Who would oppose a treaty designed to protect children? This workshop will try to answer those questions by delving into the popular and political arguments made against U.S. ratification of the CRC. Panelists will describe the opposition and provide examples of the rhetoric used to discredit the Convention. In addition, panelists will discuss possible legal and political responses to opposition arguments.
Opposition to the Convention on the Rights of the Child — Exploring Counterarguments and Seeking Clarification (43 pages), by
– Mark Engman, Director, Office of Public Policy and Advocacy, U.S. Fund for UNICEF
– Susan Kilbourne, Esq., Vice President for Advocacy and Outreach, Voices for America’s Children
– Nury Nelson, Advisor, Homeschoolers UN Club
Political Opposition to U.S. Ratification of the CRC
Most from conservative, Religious Right organizations:
– Christian Coalition
– Concerned Women for America
– Eagle Forum
– Family Research Council
– Focus on the Family
– Home School Legal Defense Association
– John Birch Society
– National Center for Home Education…
Homeschoolers and the CRC
Is Homeschooling legal in the U.S.?
– Yes, homeschooling is legal in all 50 States and U.S. Territories.How many homeschoolers live in the U.S.?
– Latest figures from National Center for Education Studies: 1.1 million in 2003
– HSLDA claims to represent 1.7 million homeschoolers in the U.S.
– The number could be higher… over 2 million…
How the CRC Really Works
– The CRC places obligations on the States Parties the governments of the countries that ratify it to protect children against governmental actions and intrusions.
– The CRC obligates governments to provide certain programs for children’s benefit, setting standards for governmental policies regarding children.[emphasis in original]
posted by Valerie
HEM
Helen
Tracy
mark
marynix
ann-lahrson-fisher
valerie
sandi
david
http://www.childrightscampaign.org/files/pdf/crc_opposition.pdf Here is the tag to get the powerpoint notes from the summit. Although it is only conjecture without a transcript as to what the speakers said during the presentation, they do not deny the sovereignty and constitutional issue made by “religious conservatives”, they try to belittle and challenge the integrity of the opposition rather than debate the issue, and have a great deal of faith in the unnamed monitors of the government to not abuse the power that would be given to whomever oversees the policies CRC proponents champion. Even the exerpt above leaves questions – i.e. if the government sets the policies to protect the children, who sets the standards and who watches the government? The U.S. Constitution requires that we uphold this ratified treaty. This would put America, who has upheld and fought for freedom and individual rights more than any other nation, in the unique position of voluntarily giving up the right granted by our Creator; that children are an inheritance of the Lord and parents, not the State or governmental body, are responsible for their upbringing. Although the treaty lists numerous abuses that people would be nuts to oppose (i.e. child abuse, prostitution, slavery, soldiering), these are abuses that are already laws in America. In short, this is not about ratifing a treaty for the good of the children; this is about transfering control over how and who raises your family, and what and who rules its own citizens. A better option would be to pass a Parental Rights Amendment (www.parentalrights.org). This would be consistant with America leading the world in upholding liberty.
Yes – Parental Rights No – Constitutional Amendment
http://homeedmag.com/HEM/264/parental-rights.html
…
Problems with a Parental Rights Amendment
A parental rights amendment is unnecessary and would threaten our rights. Unfortunately, such an amendment is being pushed by a number of people associated with the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), a national homeschooling organization, including its chairman Michael Farris.
Here are some of the problems with this amendment.
• Our parental rights exist prior to and independent of anything done by the government, so a parental rights amendment is unnecessary. Our rights are part of being a parent, a fact that is based on common sense and is commonly agreed on by parents and the general public and upheld by US court decisions. They are natural or God-given rights that will be weakened if parents ask the government to validate or protect them. When US courts have ruled in cases involving how a parent raises their child, which are primarily cases involving education and/or religion, courts have consistently ruled in parents’ favor.
• Asking the government to validate and protect our parental rights through a constitutional amendment would imply that parental rights come from the government. This would give the government power that it does not now have to change, reduce, or deny parental rights.
• If the government supposedly granted us parental rights through a constitutional amendment, it would have the power and authority to define and regulate these rights. When a term such as “parental rights” is introduced into the constitution or the statutes, the government then has to define what is meant by that term. This would give those in power a golden opportunity to insist that parents meet the requirements they set and comply with whatever rules and regulations they write. In addition, it is virtually impossible to write a law that protects parental rights in an area that is considered fundamental, such as education and health care, without first also requiring that parents comply with whatever the government sets in these areas. Because government regulation is a major threat to our parental rights, an amendment would further erode our rights.
• Parents’ relationships with and responsibilities to their children are too fundamental, broad, and basic to be effectively contained within a simple legal statement.
• Parental rights are protected by already existing amendments to the Constitution, including the ninth amendment which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
• A parental rights amendment would backfire by giving parents a false sense of security. Some people might act less carefully, be less likely to act in ways such as those suggested below, be more willing to comply with requests from officials that exceeded their legal authority, worry less about setting precedents that would infringe on their rights and the rights of other parents, etc.
• A parental rights amendment would not resolve complicated cases involving child abuse, parents’ refusal of medical treatment based on their religious beliefs, etc. These would still be taken to court.
Since parents currently have fundamental rights without a constitutional amendment, and since such an amendment would threaten our parental rights, one may wonder why HSLDA and a few others are promoting such an amendment. One possibility is that they think such an amendment would protect parental rights if the US eventually ratifies the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, although the UN Convention raises concerns, for many reasons it is unlikely to do damage in and of itself. For an explanation of this statement, see our column on the UN Convention at http://www.homeedmag.com/HEM/261/takingcharge.html.
[balance of article at link]