What Is The UNCRC?

This was one of those emails that hit my inbox at least a half dozen times in the last two months. But then last week, someone I respect suggested that I take a greater, more in-depth look into it. IT being the renewed call for the US to ratify the UN's "Convention on the Rights of the Child". This document was passed in 1989 by the UN and apparently the US is one of two countries to not ratify the pact. I decided that rather than take a special interest groups take on the CRC, I would look into it myself and see what all of the brouhaha was about.

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,

Hmmmmm - someone might want to remind the Secretary General of that verbiage and have him take a quick tour around Iran (who ratified the treaty in August of 1994).....I'm just saying...

Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,

Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,

Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,

Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity,

OK - you can't argue with that....especially if the UN ever decided to GET BACK TO the ideals proclaimed in their own charter....

Skipping the final therefores and whereases....

Article 3

1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

Hmmmm - one question who gets to decide what is in the "best interests" of the child. Suppose that a parent decides that it is in the "best interest of the child" to marry their daughter off (at the age of 8) to a 50 year old husband? What if German (ratified the treaty in April 1992) parents decide that it is in the "best interests of the child" to home school? What if a Christian Copt wanted to send their kids to a Christian school in Saudi Arabia (which ratified the treaty in 1996)? Will those parents get to decide or will the courts decide that they know better?

Article 6

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

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

Hmmmm again - this can not sit well with the "pro-choice" folks.....

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

Ummmm - question.....registered with whom exactly? With their home country or with the UN? The answer to that could be problematic. and then there is the highlighted section above. Now to many the right to "know and be cared for" by one's parents are a given - except in abusive situations. The big question then becomes what does the treaty consider to be "abuse".

Article 9

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence...

3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests. 4. Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the person(s) concerned.

What are the odds that the supreme court of Pakistan (which ratified the treaty in 1990) remember this when they go to rule on the custody of Saba Younis, 13 years old, and her 10 year old sister Anila. The Christian girls were kidnapped by a Muslim man, on June 26, and FORCED to convert to Islam. Both girls have been kept away from their parents by court order!

Some of the provisions that have many US parents concerned come later in the treaty. Section 16, for example, says that a child has the "right" privacy - so if you suspect that your kid is on drugs you have no recourse. You can't go into the childs room or look through the things that you the parent bought for them, you have no way to find out. Section 13 guarantees kids the "right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers..." and by golly if that frontier includes online pornography, by golly the UN has just given your 10 year old kid the "right" to go out and get it. I could go on and on (for a total of 54 sections) but you get the idea.

Where opponents of the measure have concerns (and rightly so) come in large part from the repeated referral to the "States Parties" and what their obligations are. In this case the "State Party" is the member state that signs this treaty. In our case that would be the US government. The states would have no say in how their citizens are treated by this outside organization - a violation of the 10th Amendment.

The biggest problem most opponents have with the UNCRC is that it supplants the parents rights on how to raise their children.

According to Geraldine van Bueren, an international scholar who assisted in the drafting of the CRC, the language of “best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child’s or the parents’, providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child.”

So instead of placing the burden of proof on the government to prove that a parent is unfit, the Convention places the burden of proof on — yes, parents. Any parent who claims that other interests might just be more important than the state’s characterization of the “best interest” of the child could end up battling the state to protect their rights as a parent.

I guess that answers my earlier question on "who decides".....

So what has happened to pull the UNCRC back on the radar of it's opponents?

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says she wants a 60-day timeframe for the State Department to complete its review so the Senate can move toward ratification of the UNCRC.
During the Senate Confirmation hearing between Boxer and UN Ambassador-designate Susan Rice held on January 15, 2009, Boxer told Rice the UNCRC would protect “the most vulnerable people of society."...

Calling it a “complicated treaty,” Rice expressed her commitment to the treaty’s objectives, but when Rice concluded that she could not meet the Senator’s strict timeframe, Boxer said they would take it up with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Whether it will happen or not is hard to say. SOS Clinton's husband, the former president had the opportunity to ratify the CRC but he did not do so...and our new UN Ambassador certainly does not sound all that interested. Although I would argue with Ambassador Rice on one thing. This treaty is not all that "complicated". It is quite simply a violation of US sovereignity and is not in the country's "best interests".

However (as we have seen before) that is not going to stop the Democrats in the House and Senate from pushing a radical agenda that is not in the best interests of the country. It would certain not hurt to call your Representatives and Senators on this one....not at all...