On February 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. As with many similarly titled UN conventions (e.g., the Universal Declaration on Human Rights), the document's innocent-sounding name is like sheep's clothing covering the wolf underneath. But first, some background:

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly on November 20, 1989. The Convention was opened for signature on January 26, 1990 and 61 countries signed the document on that day. The Convention entered into force on September 2, 1990, one month after the twentieth State ratified it.

When the United Nations World Summit for Children was held at UN headquarters in September 1990, UN spokespeople hailed the treaty as "a landmark in international efforts to strengthen justice, peace and freedom in the world," and "the most complete statement of children's rights ever made." James Grant, the director of UNICEF, calls the treaty a "Magna Carta for children, an instrument of far-reaching significance for the needs of those who are humanity's most vulnerable."

So effective was the worldwide propaganda in favor of the treaty that in the days before the summit, both houses of the U.S. Congress hurriedly passed resolutions calling on President Bush to sign the convention and then send it to the Senate for ratification before attending the summit. Only one member of Congress, Representative Thomas J. Bliley (R-Va.) urged caution and restraint. Bliley pointed out to his colleagues that there had been no hearings on the treaty that they were calling on the President to sign. "I submit," he said, "that this House has not taken the time to reflect upon the implications of the Convention and will be in for a tremendous shock when judges around the country start applying the Convention as the supreme law of the land."

The congressman from Virginia continued: "Have we determined the impact that this Convention will have on our system of federalism? No. Have we resolved in our minds its inherent conflicts with the U.S. Constitution? I think not. Do we realize the great new powers Congress is taking away from the sovereign States, as well as giving up itself, to the judiciary?"

Bliley's (and others') opposition to the convention was partially based on the fact that it — like all UN conventions — is not based on the premise stated in our Declaration of Independence that rights are God-given and, therefore, unalienable (inherent and not subject to government restriction). As with the UN Charter itself, and the constitutions of many other nations, the convention presumes to grant rights. Any governmental entity that does this also presumes the converse power to restrict or suspend those same rights.

Other objections to the convention raised by opponents to it — from the time of its drafting to this very day — include its many provisions that would serve to undermine parental authority and influence over the child's formation. The strenuous opposition voiced against the convention soon made it controversial. As we have seen, the United States did not sign it during the administration of the first President Bush, and it wasn't until the Clinton administration that Ambassador Albright signed the convention. And although President Bill Clinton supported the convention, he did not submit it to the Senate for ratification. It has not been acted upon since, except that three protocols (the equivalent of amendments) to the treaty were submitted to the Senate on July 25, 2000. (One deals with Child Prostitution and Child Pornography; a second deals with Children in Armed Conflict; the third is a functional protocol serving to recommend the other two.)

As to why this seemingly dead duck of a treaty is worth commenting on now, it is because President Obama has already indicated he is a supporter of the convention. During a presidential debate held at Walden University last October, Obama lamented that only the United States and Somalia hadn't ratified the convention:

"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land. I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

The Obama-minded Senator Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.) has also urged that the treaty, which she says provides for "basic human rights" for children, be brough back to life and ratified. "Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," she told Fox News recently.

What provisions, specifically, do the convention's opponents find troubling? One very outspoken opponent has been Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org, the founder the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. Farris has warned:

"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."

Parental Rights has posted the following objections to the CRC treaty on its website:

• Parents would no longer be allowed "spank" their children, even with a legitimate reason.
• 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" (aka "goofing off").
• 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.

Professor Farris was recently interviewed by former Arkansas governor, ordained Southern Baptist minister, presidential candidate, and Fox News commentator Mike Huckabee. The video captures many of the objections raised by pro-family advocates:

Every American concerned about the destruction of the traditional family threatened by the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child should immediately share his concerns with his U.S. Senators, and caution them to vote against this treaty, should it be presented for their advice and consent.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (8)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

dcheek21 said:

	... what is that old poem first that came for the disent then thay came for the jew then thay came for me...
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 01, 2009
Votes: +1

rheiney said:

	Obama - Do it the Stalinist Way The Obama Administration will use International Treaties and Executive Orders to implant his socialist-communist ideology as the law of the land. It has already been more difficult for Obama to pass legislation the good old fashioned way - via House and Senate. So, he'll just ram it down the American people's throats the Stalinist way.
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 02, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

MarkGlen said:

Outlaws, 2 Thessalonians 2: 8-9 (Amplified Bible) Keep in mind our enemies are outlaws. Some are outlaws because they ignorantly ignore the Constitution. But the knowledagable enemy deliberately breaks the law (The Constitution), because they must eliminate it. People that deliberately break the law are outlaws of the worse kind. Many people break the law by accepting the status quo. Why your Governor gets away with this is because he is a "good" Republican or to do otherwise is useless or not best (At first try to wake him up by not calling him an outlaw. Speak in generalities, e.g.,"Is our state an outlaw state?" because we have a conceal and carry gun law in the State of Texas. To carry a concealed gun we need a permit. That is unconstitutional. We are dealing with outlaws. The people must be reminded continually what the law says or the law will end up as a joke. of history You see my drift. You take it from here.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 03, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

MarkGlen said:

Lawlessness, a sign of the times 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 (Amplified Bible) "For the mystery of lawlessness (that hidden principle of rebellion against constituted authority) is already at work in the world, [but it is] restrained only until he who restrains is taken out of the way. "And then the lawless one (the antichrist) will be revealed and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of His mouth and bring him to an end by His appearing at His coming." If people will rebel against the Bible they will also rebel against the laws of the land.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 03, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

MarkGlen said:

	Jack VanEmpe Presents Rev. Jack VanEmpe is exposing the world conspiracy as no one has before.
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 03, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

libertyinlaw said:

	Don't be fooled by the proposed constitutional amendment The Religious Right, as always is peddling the wrong solution. The language of the proposed amendment actually GIVES the federal government authority in the area of parental rights. It would unwittingly provide a means for the federal government to legally transfer those powers to the UN someday. Don't be fooled by Obama hysteria!!
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 04, 2009
Votes: -2

MarkGlen said:

	Spank your children. It want kill them. Libertyinlaw, What are we right-wing Christians doing that is wrong. I wrote a letter to the editor of our local newspaper and got it printed that instructed parents from the Bible to spank their children.
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 04, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

New Jersey robb said:

	... One nation under Obamaism (Communionism).
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 13, 2009
Votes: +0