Trumping parents' rights

On its way to the USA

[Reprinted from Issues & Views August 20, 2001]

The United Nations is at it again. Meddling seems to be the business of the UN, although we're supposed to look upon its sundry charters, edicts, declarations and conventions as attempts to heal the wounds of the world.

In September, the UN will once again stage its "Child Summit," when it meets in New York, to press for the agendas contained in its treaty, "Convention on the Rights of the Child," originally adopted by the General Assembly in 1989.

What could be objectionable about a document that purports to be a "Magna Carta for children" and declares that children must "be free to express opinions in all matters affecting them; be free from arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence; have the right to primary education; be protected from all forms of physical abuse," and much more along these idealistic lines? As one might suspect, there's more to this treaty than meets the eye, and following are some views from a critic. Dr. Mark Hartwig, an educational psychologist, in a special report for Focus on the Family, has this to say:

Indeed, the Convention on the Rights of the Child promises sweeping protections for those who are at once the most precious and most vulnerable citizens of the world. Rejecting such an accord should give any nation pause. Yet a close look at the CRC reveals many unacceptable elements. These elements twist an otherwise praiseworthy treaty into one that intrudes on countries' national sovereignty and endangers children by interfering with their parents' rights to direct their upbringing.

Countries that sign and ratify the treaty are expected to take "all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention." This means not only that the countries must bring all their laws and regulations into line with the Convention, but must take all appropriate measures to enforce those laws and regulations.

Compliance with the treaty is monitored by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. This 18-member body is made up of "experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field covered by this Convention."

The reporting procedure provides a basis for enforcement through a nation's courts. The government reports and Committee recommendations give citizens and interest groups legal standing to sue their governments and force compliance with the Convention.

In the area of discipline, the Committee has interpreted the mandate to protect children from "all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation" as an authorization to prohibit any form of corporal discipline, "however light, in schools, at home and in institutions."

The CRC gives the Committee a virtually unlimited mandate to insert itself in the affairs of a nation. It can demand wholesale changes in a country's legal system, education system, and social-welfare institutions--whatever is necessary to bring the country into line with the Convention.

To appreciate the Committee's reach, it may help to list some of the matters the Convention specifically places under its jurisdiction: breast feeding; nutrition; hygiene; children's access to health care and legal counseling; children's social, spiritual, moral , physical and mental well-being; environmental pollution; sex education; parental discipline; family planning; children's leisure, play and recreational activities; the media; children's books; social security; immigration policy and other matters.

As the Committee's reports and recommendations show, the rights and duties of parents are consistently given the lowest priority. Thus, in many of its meetings and reports, the Committee expresses "concern" that many countries do not allow minors to seek medical, psychological or legal counseling without parental consent.

The presumption is that parents are not a resource, but a problem to be circumvented. The obvious role of parents as a frontline defense for their children is rejected in favor or some unspecified "monitoring mechanism."

Such a mindset harms children in many ways. For one thing, it harms them morally. By allowing privacy, self-expression, access to information and freedom of association to trump parents' rights, it enables children to hide their activities from their parents.

Instead of reinforcing the estrangement of children from their parents, the Committee should empower parents to overcome such barriers. The presumption should be that parents are ready and willing to aid their children--not to reject and abuse them.

Read Dr. Hartwig's full report here.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views