Author Topic: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights  (Read 3526 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« on: February 05, 2009, 11:43:02 AM »
Who comes up with this kind of nonsense?   ???

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 ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the 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.

Although signed 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." It is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.

According to the Parental 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 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.

"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."
 
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 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."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87929

Dan-O

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9729
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2009, 11:46:18 AM »
Fuck the UN.  They've far overstepped their bounds.  They ceased to be relevant a long time ago and should be done away with.

What the hell do they think they are--the supreme world governing body or something?  Seriously.  Fuck em.  Stuff like this really pisses me off.

Hereford

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4028
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2009, 11:48:43 AM »
First world nations get nothing from being in the UN.

The UN is a place where irrelevant piss-ant nations can mouth off to the US, UK, Australia, Germany, etc., and not get donkeystomped for their insolence.

MRDUMPLING

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1190
  • Getbig!
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2009, 11:54:21 AM »
This is truly disgusting, and to think an American actually signed this thing back in '95.  People wonder why we are where we are today...WAKE UP AMERICA!!

JOCKTHEGLIDE

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2573
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2009, 11:58:14 AM »
you guys seriously need to see the movie trilogy, "left behind" it talks about all this and more.......

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2009, 12:04:41 PM »
Yeah, banning death penalties for kids is really fcuked up.


Fcuk UN. Those barbarians. ::)
As empty as paradise

JOCKTHEGLIDE

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2573
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2009, 12:06:19 PM »
Yeah, banning death penalties for kids is really fcuked up.


Fcuk UN. Those barbarians. ::)
thy the president will join with UN and become as one as currency and he will become the savior of all man in disguise of the devil........

shootfighter1

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5674
  • Competitor- NABBA Nationals Overall Champ
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2009, 12:07:59 PM »
We cannot allow our country to go in this direction guys.

Dan-O

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9729
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2009, 12:09:05 PM »
Yeah, banning death penalties for kids is really fcuked up.


Fcuk UN. Those barbarians. ::)

OK....  here's my suggestion.  Reinvent the UN as The League of Third-World Nations.  I mean that's pretty much who this kind of "legislation" is aimed at.  But there's really zero (0) need for it amongst civilized Western countries.

shootfighter1

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5674
  • Competitor- NABBA Nationals Overall Champ
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2009, 12:12:27 PM »
Hedge, you take one single provision and make a comment.  Has the US executed any 17 year olds lately?  Its not that every idea is wrong, its the general concept.  I think some of you hard liberals should be sent back to 1950s Communist Russia then see what extreme government oppression is like when it travels down that path.

The point is that the government and the UN should not have more juristiction over children than their parents.  This is insane....new world order, orwellian, big brother. To hell with big government and the idea that people outside of this country try to control our lives and set rules for us.  We should be appauled at this insult to our freedom.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #10 on: February 05, 2009, 12:22:03 PM »
Yeah, banning death penalties for kids is really fcuked up.


Fcuk UN. Those barbarians. ::)

What do you think about the rest?

- 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.

CQ

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7018
  • TGT
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2009, 12:25:02 PM »
Yeah, banning death penalties for kids is really fcuked up.


Fcuk UN. Those barbarians. ::)

Yeah, I thought the same thing as well. Terrible.

In fact I suggest we move into giving kids the chair for failing maths ::)

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2009, 01:44:40 PM »
What do you think about the rest?

- 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.


I've actually read the Convention of the Children's rights.

What you just posted is someone's interpretation which I cannot agree on.

Why don't you check out the original text yourself, and see if you agree with me that the above interpretation is a bit farfetched:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
As empty as paradise

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2009, 01:59:24 PM »
Chelsea Schilling of WorldNetDaily seems just a little bit paranoid

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2009, 02:16:34 PM »
Chelsea Schilling of WorldNetDaily seems just a little bit paranoid

The problem is that so few take the time to go to the actual source and read what is there.

Then they would see that this convention is pretty weak, even when ratified.

Just one example of how weak this convention is:

Afghanistan, of all countries, has ratified it.(!)




...just as long as the convention wouldn't interfer with Sharia laws.



No, I'm not kidding, they actually had that written into the actual treaty.

As empty as paradise

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2009, 03:20:10 PM »
It does sound a bit hysterical......maybe the UN ought to stop the child rape of its "soldiers" in Un refugee camps before it tells anybody else what to do. They're worthless....If these morons had their shit together we wouldn't need AFRICOM, we wouldn't need troops in Bosnia..etc etc.
L

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #16 on: February 05, 2009, 03:39:08 PM »
It does sound a bit hysterical......maybe the UN ought to stop the child rape of its "soldiers" in Un refugee camps before it tells anybody else what to do. They're worthless....If these morons had their shit together we wouldn't need AFRICOM, we wouldn't need troops in Bosnia..etc etc.
Look at the original UN convention and compare it to the article.
I posted a link.
As empty as paradise

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #17 on: February 05, 2009, 04:24:30 PM »
I've actually read the Convention of the Children's rights.

What you just posted is someone's interpretation which I cannot agree on.

Why don't you check out the original text yourself, and see if you agree with me that the above interpretation is a bit farfetched:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm


O.K.  I read it.  What interpretation do you think is a bit farfetched? 

War-Horse

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6490
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #18 on: February 05, 2009, 06:22:04 PM »
O.K.  I read it.  What interpretation do you think is a bit farfetched? 




Here we go.  ;D

Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #19 on: February 05, 2009, 06:36:04 PM »

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2009, 01:10:59 AM »
O.K.  I read it.  What interpretation do you think is a bit farfetched? 
Obviously the part about Christianity in school, eg.

National defence - you think any nation spends more on kids than on defence?
Yet no one is getting sued - strange.
The claim that the convention would be legally supreme to USA's own is also false.

As empty as paradise

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #21 on: February 06, 2009, 01:33:04 AM »
I've actually read the Convention of the Children's rights.

What you just posted is someone's interpretation which I cannot agree on.

Why don't you check out the original text yourself, and see if you agree with me that the above interpretation is a bit farfetched:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

I was just about to ask for another source after I saw worldnetdaily.  Not that all the info that comes from there is bad but I've read some woppers there too.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2009, 09:51:49 AM »
Obviously the part about Christianity in school, eg.

National defence - you think any nation spends more on kids than on defence?
Yet no one is getting sued - strange.
The claim that the convention would be legally supreme to USA's own is also false.



The article says "Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC."  You think this is false?  I haven't verified it one way or the other.   

I don't know what other nations spend on defense.  I know there are some countries that spend very little (e.g., Japan). 

How do you know no one is getting sued?  The article suggests otherwise. 

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #23 on: February 06, 2009, 11:51:02 AM »
The article says "Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC."  You think this is false?  I haven't verified it one way or the other.   

You claim to have read what my link to the original document. How then could you have missed this part?

Article 30

In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.

If anything, this article protects the right of the child to actually be part of a religious cult, eg the Amish people or similar.

I don't know what other nations spend on defense.  I know there are some countries that spend very little (e.g., Japan). 
Japan is one of the biggest spenders in the world. But lets not focus on factual errors.

How do you know no one is getting sued?  The article suggests otherwise.
I've never heard about anyone getting sued. At what court would they get sued BTW?

This convention isn't made into law in any country I know of. It's just a convention that tries to raise the living standards for kids around the world.

I don't see how anyone could object to it.

And once again, read the original text instead of just reading some paranoid conspiracy theorists assertions.


No offence.


As empty as paradise

War-Horse

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6490
Re: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
« Reply #24 on: February 06, 2009, 07:54:18 PM »
The article says "Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC."  You think this is false?  I haven't verified it one way or the other.   

You claim to have read what my link to the original document. How then could you have missed this part?

Article 30

In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.

If anything, this article protects the right of the child to actually be part of a religious cult, eg the Amish people or similar.

I don't know what other nations spend on defense.  I know there are some countries that spend very little (e.g., Japan). 
Japan is one of the biggest spenders in the world. But lets not focus on factual errors.

How do you know no one is getting sued?  The article suggests otherwise.
I've never heard about anyone getting sued. At what court would they get sued BTW?

This convention isn't made into law in any country I know of. It's just a convention that tries to raise the living standards for kids around the world.

I don't see how anyone could object to it.

And once again, read the original text instead of just reading some paranoid conspiracy theorists assertions.


No offence.













Impressive.     Beachbum, its your turn...... :D