-Caveat Lector-

WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War!

U.N. pushes for 'child rights'
Family-values groups express alarm at controversial measure

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

--


By Mary Jo Anderson
� 2001 WorldNetDaily.com


NEW YORK -- Country delegates gather at the United Nations tomorrow to
finalize their negotiations on a document to be presented at an upcoming
"World Summit" that will focus on the sexual exploitation of children in
Asia, boys conscripted as soldiers in Africa, children the world over sold
into forced labor and other grave injustices.

The U.N. General Assembly's Special Session on Children is scheduled for
Sept. 19.

Although world leaders have agreed that all children must be protected from
exploitation, their concern is driving a controversial movement to redefine
rights for children.

For instance, legal scholars have asked whether those legitimate protections
require that children also have rights to "assembly" and rights to legal,
psychological and medical services without parental consent? Such sweeping
"rights" make children masters of their own lives and thus vulnerable to
everything from pornographers to abortion providers to pedophiles, say
concerned family-values groups.

At stake are the legal standing of the children of the world, national
sovereignty and the traditional legal protection for parental rights. The
United Nations seeks to create a universal and autonomous legal standing for
children 0-18 years of age. Pro-family observers have voiced grave
reservations about the document in progress. Is a child an autonomous bearer
of rights or are his rights safeguarded within the context of the family
until the child is of age?

Delegates from 180 countries will meet throughout the week to refine the
draft document that has been in negotiation for months. At issue is the
framework for the document.

The United States, under the Bush administration, seeks to avoid use of the
U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as the foundation for the
World Summit for Children. The U.S. believes that the legitimate need to
protect children from gross human rights abuses can be accomplished without
implementation of the CRC that some say eviscerates parental rights and
national sovereignty.

The European Union and other allies have insisted that the CRC should be
implemented as part of the Summit. The Convention on the Rights of the Child
is an international treaty that has been signed by every nation except
Somalia and the United States. The U.S. Congress has, so far, been confident
that American laws protect American children.

The U.S. endures a diplomatic chill for its refusal to ratify the CRC that
was adopted in 1989 by the nations of the world. The roiling undercurrent of
this week's negotiations on the draft document for children will be the
growing alienation of the United States from her traditional allies on a
whole spectrum of "rights" issues. The criticisms of other nations take on
particular significance in the wake of the ouster of the U.S. from the United
Nations Human Rights Committee last month.

On Wednesday, Rep. Chris Smith and other members the House Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights cited the presence of alleged human
rights offenders, including Sudan and China, on the U.N.'s Human Rights
Commission.

"The Nazis could serve and be in good standing on the Human Rights
Commission," said Smith. Conversely, Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of
Georgia claims the U.S. is one of the world's "worst rights abusers,"
according to a U.N. report.

Amnesty International also lists the United States among rights abusers.
Richard Matthews of the Atlanta Journal Constitution dismissed the A.I.
report. Amnesty International "drones on endlessly about the horrible state
of human rights in hellhole places like the United States, Canada and
Australia, largely ignoring the major difference between individual outlaw
acts and the intentional, premeditated policies of ruling regimes," he wrote.
American organizations also express deep concern for the growing divide over
the international understanding of rights, particularly newly interpreted
rights for children. According to the conservative family-values group
Concerned Women of America, "This treaty (CRC) divorces children from their
parents, giving them full autonomy over every aspect of their lives. This
assault on parental rights puts children's lives and well being at risk,
rather than seeking their best interest."

Opponents of the treaty point to Article 3 as too loosely constructed and
open to interpretations that favor the state as the primary guardian of the
child and the arbiter of "best interests of the child." Other problematical
provisions are found in Article 13: "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."

Critics note that the phrase "ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers" is
ominous. Such "rights" make children the prey of satanic cults, pornographers
and Internet pedophiles among other dangers. The right to abortion and
contraception education and services is provided in Article 24, and the right
to "profess and practice his or her own religion" is codified in Article 30.
Some parents have asked what if the "religion" is a juvenile obsession with a
dangerous cult? The language of the treaty is too easily manipulated, claim
opponents.

Family Research Council, a Washington D.C.-based policy studies organization,
issued a position paper on the CRC that warned of "much ambiguous language.
However, many prominent lawyers became aware of the problems and traps ..."
The Bush administration tapped Family Research Council senior fellow William
Saunders to serve on the U.S. delegation to this week's negotiations at the
U.N. Saunders, whose work at Harvard Law School focused on legal philosophy
and international law, is also vice chair for religious liberties of the
Federalist Society.

The Family Research Council's paper, "The Wrongs of the U.N.'s Rights of the
Child" traces the history of the treaty's development and the worrisome
interpretations applied by contemporary proponents. The paper identifies the
treaty as "humanist (not Christian). Humanism denies and rejects God. ...
Humanism recognizes and accepts abortion, euthanasia, suicide and countless
other immoral acts. ..." The paper is blunt in its assessment of the purposes
behind the treaty supporters, who work for the "establishment of a completely
secular society, which is its goal. It also realizes that the traditional
family, marked by strong parental authority, is an obstacle to this goal and,
therefore, seeks to dismantle it."

Focus on the Family, one of the oldest and best known evangelical
organizations in the United States, advises its members that the Rights of
the Child treaty "means not only that the countries must bring all their laws
and regulations into line with the Convention, but must take all appropriate
measures to enforce those laws and regulations." The organization fears the
Treaty is a threat to national sovereignty.

Focus on the Family points to the Treaty's establishment of an official
committee to monitor compliance. Several nations have been ordered to make
adjustments to domestic laws in order to achieve Treaty objectives.

"... [The CRC] gives the Committee a virtually unlimited mandate to insert
itself in the affairs of a nation. It can demand wholesale changes in a
country's legal system, education system, and social-welfare institutions --
whatever is necessary to bring the country into line with the Convention,"
says Focus on the Family.

Focus on the Family lists the following matters of daily life to be the
domain of the Convention on the Rights of the Child Committee: breastfeeding;
children's access to healthcare and legal counseling; children's social,
spiritual, moral physical and mental well-being; environmental pollution; sex
education; parental discipline; family planning; children's leisure, play and
recreational activities; the media; children's books.

Focus encourages its members to contact the U.S. Congress and urge that it
"conduct public hearings on attempts by U.N. treaty bodies, such as the
Committee on the Rights of the Child, to advance policies that intrude on
national sovereignty and undermine the rights of parents."

At least one United Kingdom family policy group is also calling for a second
look at the Treaty. Lynette Burrows of the Oxford Family Trust quotes with
anxiety the ideology of Gerison Lansdown, chair of the Children's Rights
Development Unit. "Much of children's vulnerability derives from historical
attitudes ... and is a social and political construct and not an inherent or
inevitable consequence of childhood itself. ..."

Burrows adds, "Some of the strongest support for 'children's rights' has come
from well-identified homosexual and pedophile organizations, which long ago
realized that the easiest way to obtain access to children was to demand
their freedom from any form of restraint, thereby exposing them to the
predatory behavior of those who would harm them."

As the U.S. picks its way through the negotiations at the U.N. in the coming
week, pro-family non-governmental organizations in attendance hope to help
forestall any demand to make the Convention on the Rights of the Child the
framework for the September World Summit for Children.




*COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational
purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]

Want to be on our lists?  Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists!

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to