U.N. PARENTAL RIGHTS TREATY

I just wanted to let everybody know that the potentially disastrous treaty is once again rearing it's ulgy head with the new administration. If this treaty is ratified, it would "TRUMP" all our state laws and potentially override our freedom to homeschool and raise our children as we are directed . Please visit the Parental Rights web site for details. Michael Farris is the president of the H.S.L.D.A. group there and their web site has up-to-date information.
Below, I have included the twenty things you need to know.





20 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW
Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC.

It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.
Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.
Children of other nations would not be impacted in any direct way by our ratification.
The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of our Supremacy Clause.
The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.
The Courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.
Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.
A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.
Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.
Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.


Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC.

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 religion.
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.
[url=(START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE[/url]
[url=(START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE[/url]

You can agree or disagree. We as parents will have NO RIGHTS over our children. They will belong to our government.

What do you all think about this?
I was quite excited to see religion taken out of schools...that is long overdue. Right to sex ed...I think its a good measure.
I have spent enough time 're teaching' our native culture at home to undo 6 hours of school misguidence. Most of the families I know do take the stance of advising their children in religion, encouraging the family tradition, but in the end, the child will believe what they believe.
The rest will take more digesting, and reading the links provided.
thanks for the info, whats everyone else think?

Sorry here is a better link please read all the way to the end. What this will do is this example.
Say your child wouldn't keep her grades up so you said ok your not going to the prom. That child has the right to take you to court and the judge decide. Your child can keep you in court. Don't just read the things they want you to see. They are not telling the whole story . Read this and please read it all.
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

In my opinion - PARENTS have LET this happen because they just haven't taken the TIME with their kids. Most parents today couldn't tell you what the hell is going on in Public Schools and wouldn't recognize their kid's teacher if they ran into them on the street. Why? because they're just too darn busy to bother with it (not everyone - but most).

TV has taken over "parental" control - it's "easier" to just let the kid do whatever than discipline them (look around the mall and just watch how kids are acting these days -- would your parents have put up with that? Mine sure wouldn't).

Religion has NO part in school programs (except a prayer for the football team to win, etc). But the US FLAG does (what? did we forget about that one?) Most of the parents today don't even vote - what do we expect?

Yeah, I'm on my soapbox, but if we don't want things like this to happen (and I don't) then maybe it's time people wake up and take some responsibility and quit letting the government "run" their lives. But to do that they have to put out a little effort and most of the people in the US just aren't willing to do that. It's just too easy to let "them" tend to it. Our kids and grandkids will suffer, but poo poo "I just don't have the time to get involved." :(

Hugs BD

There are so many inaccuracies, misinterpretations and exaggerations in the cut-and-paste that started this thread. It reminds me of the people that got hysterical when they found an educational document that talked about the "socialization of school children" ... they read it as evidence of a commie plot when the document was talking about developing social skills (ie, getting along with others, learning to raise one's hand, forming lines and not cutting, etc).

There is nothing about home-schooling in the treaty.

HSDLA (the home schooling group that sent that out) is an 'unusual' organization. For one thing, it goes beyond issues related to home schooling and takes advocacy positions opposing abortion, same-sex marriage and gay rights, and the international chemical weapons convention!! It's more than an educational organization, it is a alarmist right wing advocacy group.


Quote:

Need I Join HSLDA? Think carefully before you pay $85-$100 in annual dues to a homeschool defense organization -- especially one that sends out frequent urgent alerts, uses frightening scenarios to sell its product, is inherently exclusive, and declines to link to most inclusive state homeschool associations. Find out what it really provides. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Reminds me of PETA.


The full treaty on the rights of children is here:
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE


HappyElaine wrote on Feb 12^th, 2009 at 8:06pm:

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

Incorrect. Nothing in the treaty about that. The only sections on punishment of children specifically address limits and responsibilities of how governments punish children:


Quote:

States Parties shall ensure that: (a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age; (b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time; (c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances; (d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action.

HappyElaine wrote on Feb 12^th, 2009 at 8:06pm:

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.

Again, wrong. The treaty reads "Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age" ... people who are 17.999999 years of age can be sentenced to life in prison. They would be eligible for parole hearings, which could be continuously denied if the case warranted it. Legally, there needs to be a cut off distinguishing children from adults (which is inherently arbitary), and there is a separate set of rules. It is not unreasonable to say kids get a maximum of life with the possibility of parole.  

Leisure? Yes, children should not be chained to a machine in a sweat shop for 16 hours a day. Kids need to play to develop properly. Do you really have a problem with that idea??  Certainly, some third world countries do.

Like I said agree or disagree that is your right. I have no problem with it. I have done my homework on this.
I have looked at others who adopted this and went through some of the cases that came up. I can't post all the links.
Here is one last thing on it. You won't hear anymore from me on it. I just want people to beware.
Here it is in Text there are so many loop holes in it that even the best parent could have a child taken away from them. It is not just abouut homeschool its about parent rights.
A child with Christian parents can come home from school and legally prictice witch craft or devil wishop and there is nothing they could do. Just read it.


START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child reflects the vision of the UN to take rights away from parents, thereby allowing the government to raise your children while indoctrinating them into the new "global consciousness".  The convention describes children as a member of a family AND the community, placing much of the responsibility for their well being on the state rather than the parents.  In Article 17 the Convention states that "States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health".  So, who dictates what material is diverse enough, what spiritual information they should have access to, and what promotes moral well being?  You guessed it.  The United Nations and the Convention decide what is best for your child.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was drafted over the course of 10 years (1979 - 1989) by representatives of a variety of religions and cultures along with members of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and several NGO's.  Like all human rights treaties, the Convention on the Rights of the Child had first to be approved, or adopted, by the United Nations General Assembly. On 20 November 1989, the governments represented at the General Assembly agreed to adopt the Convention into international law.  It has since been ratified by 191 countries with only the United States and Somalia abstaining.  It should be of concern to all Americans, however, that the U.S. has signaled its intent to ratify the treaty by formally signing the Convention.  Why should you be concerned?  The treaty obligates all those countries who ratify it to abide by a not so small list of mandates that effectively take the job of raising your children away from you and hand it over to the government.   The Convention puts it this way:

"Prior to or shortly after ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child, States are required to bring their national legislation into line with its provisions – except where the national standards are already higher. In this way, child rights standards are no longer merely an aspiration but, rather, are nationally binding on States. Ratification also makes States publicly and internationally accountable for their actions through the process in which States report on the Convention's implementation. At the centre of the monitoring process is the Committee on the Rights of the Child, an independent, elected (elected by themselves) committee whose members are of "high moral standing" and are experts in the field of human rights."

Below are some of these mandates that states will be required to report on:

Article 6

1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.

Interestingly, this does not apply to unborn children.

Article 5

States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

This article starts out fine, but throws in a qualifier that negates the respect of parents rights and duties.  States shall respect the rights and duties of parents as long as direction and guidance complies with the rights of the child recognized in the present convention.  And, who decides what the evolving capacities of the child are?  Appropriate direction and guidance of your child is no longer up to the parents, it must comply with the rights of the child recognized by the Convention.              

Article 2

1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

What this is basically saying is that the rights of a child as set forth in the Convention override the rights of the child as perceived by the parents based on their religion or opinions.  If the rights the Convention feels are due your child conflict with your religious beliefs, political opinions or cultural background, too bad.  

Article 4

States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention. With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation.  

Still pushing the globalization agenda and the elimination of national sovereignty, this would put our economic, social and cultural rights in the hands of the United Nations and the "international community".

Article 6

2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

Once again the STATE becomes responsible for the development of your child.

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.

Perhaps an example of this law in action would be good.  Suppose you find out your school is requiring that their teachers teach a class on homosexuality where lifestyles are discussed in detail and the students are taught that this is normal, acceptable behavior (this is actually happening in the US).  Little Johny comes home and tells mom or dad that they want to participate in the class.  Mom and Dad feel this class goes against the beliefs and values they are trying to instill in their developing child and has no place in the school curriculum.  Too bad.  The state feels Johny is old enough to make his own decisions on matters of sexual preference and has a right to express his own views on the matter.

Article 13

1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.

Article 14

1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

After the class meditation exercise, Johny draws a  picture of a satanic symbol and a picture of the earth, and writes below it "we are all God and the Earth is our Mother".  Little Johny brings the art project home and shows Mom and Dad.  Even though Mom and Dad are Christian and are trying to teach their child that Jesus Christ is his savior and  created the earth, Johny has a right to his own beliefs and a right to express them however he wants to.  After all teacher told him he did.

Article 14

2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

What parental direction does the Convention feel is consistent with the evolving capacities of the child?  

Article 14

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

This one should scare all of us.  Freedom of religion becomes freedom of religion as long as the convention does not determine your beliefs are a threat to public safety, order, health, morals, or the freedoms of others.  We've all seen the beginnings of this line of thinking in our government.  If someone finds your Christianity offensive you are somehow infringing upon that person's rights and are expected to hide the fact that you're Christian.  

Article 17

States Parties shall:

(a) Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child and in accordance with the spirit of article 29;

The state and the media team up to raise our children.

Article 27

1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

What does the convention consider an adequate standard of living for the child's spiritual, moral and social development?

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;

There you have it in a nutshell.  The state is responsible for making sure your child develops a respect for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.  Remember when it was pretty much accepted that parents were responsible for teaching their children the principles they believed were best for them?

This treaty just emphasizes the importance of Christians getting more involved in government.  We all need to be aware of the legislation that is passing through our government bodies and make sure our voice is heard.  It is in the best interest of our children to be pro-active in our fight to raise them as Christians while teaching them the morals and principles of the BIBLE not the principles of the United Nations Charter.

Have a good day but before you give in to it, please research  what cases other country's have done that adopted this. How did the courts intervene in family affairs after they adopted this.  

Nothing personal, Elaine, but the more I read about Michael Farris, the more I am convinced he is in the same bucket as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the other kooks of that stripe.  

Farris is openly for an American version of Iran, where his version of fundamentalism is enforced on all - he calls it the "Joshua Movement." The evils of Hollywood, the internet, women dressing immodestly and working outside the home, all of these problems and more can be solved when Farris's fundamentalists take over all branches of government.

At Patrick Henry College (which Farris founded and served as President and now Chancellor), all science teachers are required to sign a declaration of faith that includes the belief that the Earth was literally created in 6 days of 24 hours. Fine if that's what he believes, but it indicates that he is in fundamental denial of objective reality.

Students, faculty and staff there are all required to subscribe to the belief that "Hell is a place where all who die outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity" ...  apparently, God is a sadist intent on torturing those millions of people who lived and died without hearing of Jesus. He (and anyone else) are free to believe this, although I see it as idiotic and blasphemy against God.

The HLSDA recently sent out this in an email:
"For February, the GenJ book club is reading "Darwin on Trial" by
Phillip E. Johnson. This controversial book sent shockwaves through
academia by presenting a compelling, logical case against the theory
of evolution."

No.  That book did not send out shockwaves in academia. It is no different from other creationist/ID books, which deny reality to promote ideology. The creationist/ID movement has consistently been anti-intellectual and dishonest in their drive to replace real science with a blend of (their) religion, science, and pseudoscience.

Elaine, here is one of your analyses that illustrates your persistent errors in analyzing the document:


Quote:

1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. What this is basically saying is that the rights of a child as set forth in the Convention override the rights of the child as perceived by the parents based on their religion or opinions.  If the rights the Convention feels are due your child conflict with your religious beliefs, political opinions or cultural background, too bad.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means that all children have rights, regardless of the color, sex, language or religion etc of the child or of the parents, and that governments should recognize the rights of all children equally.

If you can't read a sentence like that for comprehension, and you are convinced that the treaty is a sinister plot to take your children and grandchildren and turn them over to the control of the NWO, I guess there is nothing further to discuss with you.