| HomeschoolingResourceCenter.org Home | Log In | Join | Search | About Us | Contact Us |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Important Current Event Revised August 5, 2009 |
As homeschoolers, we teach our children the importance of critical thinking, and not just taking something
as fact just because we see it in print. The possibility that the Obama Administration may push for ratification
of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (often referred to as CRC or UNCRC) has spawned a movement for a
constitutional amendment that would protect parental rights. The Bible tells us to be watchful and to walk
circumspectly. That means we are to evaluate a decision from every angle in order to understand the consequences
of any course of action. It is in that vein that we offer this information.
What It Is The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has been around for some time. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1989. As of November, 2008, the only members of the UN who have not ratified it are the United States and Somalia. This is not the first time the US has refused to ratify a UN convention. A copy of the Convention can be found on www.unicef.org/crc. Background The CRC was originally designed to improve the lives of children throughout the world. It was a response to the growing exploitation of children in prostitution rings and slavery, atrocities committed as a result of civil wars, appalling conditions in refugee camps, and certain cultural practices. The UNICEF website on the CRC explains that it is the “first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights – civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights.” The introduction goes on to say: In 1989, world leaders decided that children needed a special convention just for them because people under 18 years old often need special care and protection that adults do not. The leaders also wanted to make sure that the world recognized that children have human rights too. UNICEF's webpage spells out the basic human rights that children should have:
Given the existence of such horrendous conditions, the convention is certainly understandable. Proponents argue that the international mandate is necessary to fight such evils. Why the concern then? While the general ideals sound good on the surface, it is the details outlined in the Articles of the Convention that cause concern.
Likewise, Article 29 mandates that the education of the child shall include the development of the child's personality, talents, and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential. While it gives lip service to respect for the child's parents, it goes on to ensure “the preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples...and the development of respect for the natural environment.” The articles says government will not interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to direct educational institutions unless they go against the principles set forth in the document. The CRC even goes so far as to mandate the use of the mass media to “ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources.” And since the child is considered a separate entity, it is the child's right, not the parent's prerogative to decide what the child is exposed to. The child has the right to be free of imposition of parental rules and thought patterns. The main concern, of course, is who decides? A judge who is anti-homeschooling, who decides that the child is not being exposed to alternative viewpoints? A judge who is anti-Christian who believes that teaching what the Bible says about certain lifestyles is intolerant and considered a hate crime? Or a governor who killed a parental notification bill passed by the representatives of the people? All recent examples within these United States. Proponents argue that conservatives and Christians are blowing these items out of proportion, declaring that the intent of the Convention is not to undermine the role of the parent. But the vagueness of the Articles and the sweeping authority given to the States Parties (federal governments) suggests otherwise. Why a Constitutional Amendment? Senator Jim DeMint (South Carolina) authored Senate Joint Resolution 16 and Representative Pete Hoekstra (Michigan) authored House Joint Resolution 42, to initiate the process of adding a “Parental Rights Amendment” to the Constitution of the United States to ensure that no law or international treaty would undermine the authority of the parents and family in raising children. Even though the ratification of the treaty has not been able to pass Congress to date, it is believed that such an amendment would settle the matter once and for all, not to mention restating the need for parents to know what their minor-aged children are doing or to decide what medications their children are forced to take. The primary organization leading the push for the amendment is www.parentalrights.org, started by one of the founders of the Home School Legal Defense Association, Michael Farris. Mr. Farris has written several articles addressing his concerns about the treaty and the need for an amendment. They are available on the Parental Rights website. A typical article from the mainline media can be found on www.ClipandCopy.com, “US Clash Brewing Over Global Rights of Child Pact, Associate Press national writer David Crary, April, 29, 2009. Is an Amendment Necessary or Desired? Homeschoolers need to know that there is not full agreement, even within the homeschooling community, that an amendment to the US Constitution is the best way to go. Both proponents and critics of the UN Convention have expressed concerns. The major concerns are:
|
