New action from the United Nations.

WorldNetDaily reports on an imminent United Nations’ assault on parental rights with Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College weighed in.

The item of concern is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child:

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.

According to the Parental Rights Website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:



My takes follow each one in parenthesis.





Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
(Isn't there a better way to say "NO", other than to hit the crap outta the kid?)


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.
(Because he's not an adult, right? If you want to treat him as an adult, that should mean he's one day away from the legal drinking age. After all, he's one day away from going off to war. Is he an adult, or not at age 18 minus one day?)


Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
(That's good. Kids should certainly be allowed to choose their own path, as long as it's not hurting anyone.)

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.
(Let the nations spend as they see fit. National defense may a higher priority one one country, and not in another.)


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.
(Good. Don't force it down their throats. If the parents want the kid to have a religous education, that's why we have religious schools. If they want a non-religious education, that's why we have public schools.)

Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
(Good. Let the parents teach the kids themselves. Sex can be a controversial subject, and not everyone may want their kids learning it from someone else.)

Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
(The parents should know. OTOH, the kids shouldn't be having sex.)

This will likely be ratified during the Obama administration.

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.

----------------------


Look for the religious right to go all up in arms about this.