International convention on the rights of the child

[Asguard]

Why is it that the US is one of only 2 countries in the world who haven't ratified the convention on the rights of the child? Even countries you judge as immoral like china, Iran, Vietnam, Cuba etc etc

Contents

The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child. This approach is different from the common law approach found in many countries that had previously treated children as possessions or chattels, ownership of which was sometimes argued over in family disputes.

In many jurisdictions, properly implementing the Convention requires an overhaul of child custody and guardianship laws, or, at the very least, a creative approach within the existing laws. The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping, and to have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.

The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, and to have their privacy protected, and it requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.

The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and asks that the child's viewpoint be heard in such cases. The Convention forbids capital punishment for children.

In its General Comment 8 (2006) the Committee on the Rights of the Child stated that there was an "obligation of all States parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children".[11] Article 19 of the Convention states that State Parties must "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence",[12] but it makes no reference to corporal punishment, and the Committee's interpretation on this point has been explicitly rejected by several States Party to the Convention, including Australia,[13] Canada and the United Kingdom.

The European Court of Human Rights has made reference to the Convention when interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights.[14]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#section_1

 

[Asguard]

http://www.unicef.org/southafrica/SAF_resources_crcchildfriendly.pdf

 

[Read-Only]

Gee, Asguard, I don't know. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that every American child has been provided all those proposed protections under American law for a VERY LONG TIME.

 

[Asguard]

So what's the problem with ratifying it then?

That being said I can think of a few where you DON'T comply as far as I have herd. For instance custody battles where the convention states that the child MUST be represented by there own lawyer and that the child has a RIGHT to access with both parents (ie there shouldn't BE any custody battles)

Artical 19 is abysmal from your own people comments here

How is artical 14 being respected?

What about artical 12?

Arrivals 15 and 16?
Privacy especially is non existent judging by the comments made by various parents her and how many parents have interfered in a child's choice of relationships?

Artical 26 and 27 how many street kids are there? How many homeless families an how much money is the goverment giving them to rectify this? How many houses are they giving them to keep families off the streets? WHY DO YOU NOT HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE???

28 how many kids aren't going to school every day an being taught expert approved education?

How many people know artical 31 and keep it front and center?

How is the US POSSIBILY in compliance with article 40?

Artical 42, do ALL adults teach children there rights and seek to enforce them even against parents desires?

 

[Read-Only]

So what's the problem with ratifying it then?

That being said I can think of a few where you DON'T comply as far as I have herd. For instance custody battles where the convention states that the child MUST be represented by there own lawyer and that the child has a RIGHT to access with both parents (ie there shouldn't BE any custody battles)

Artical 19 is abysmal from your own people comments here

How is artical 14 being respected?

What about artical 12?

Arrivals 15 and 16?
Privacy especially is non existent judging by the comments made by various parents her and how many parents have interfered in a child's choice of relationships?

Artical 26 and 27 how many street kids are there? How many homeless families an how much money is the goverment giving them to rectify this? How many houses are they giving them to keep families off the streets? WHY DO YOU NOT HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE???

28 how many kids aren't going to school every day an being taught expert approved education?

How many people know artical 31 and keep it front and center?

How is the US POSSIBILY in compliance with article 40?

Artical 42, do ALL adults teach children there rights and seek to enforce them even against parents desires?

I'm not even going to bother addressing all your stupid misunderstandings about how things work over here! But instead that for the UMPHTEENTH time you are yet again critical of a country who's systems you know practically nothing about.

As I've also told you a million times, I know little about how things work in your corner of the world - but at least I'm intelligent enough not to try and tell YOU what you and your people are doing wrong. And I would strongly suggest that you do the same.

 

[Asguard]

This isn't an area where you get that luxury, part of the convention is international oversight. Does any country do this perfectly? No for instance genital mutilation and corporal punishment aren't illegal world wide yet but that will change eventually, but you have to start with a framework and that's what this is an international framework of child protection. President Obma has called this "a national disgrace" and yet still it's not ratified.

 

[Read-Only]

This isn't an area where you get that luxury, part of the convention is international oversight. Does any country do this perfectly? No for instance genital mutilation and corporal punishment aren't illegal world wide yet but that will change eventually, but you have to start with a framework and that's what this is an international framework of child protection. President Obma has called this "a national disgrace" and yet still it's not ratified.

I'm not aware of Obama's comments (I pay him little attention anway) - can you provide a link to that?

 

[Asguard]

Nice to see you read links rather than just blowing stuff out of your ass, the Wikipedia link for instance

Oh and here's another from the rest of his cabinate http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2009/06/23/obama-administration-seek_n_219511.html

 

[James R]

Gee, Asguard, I don't know. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that every American child has been provided all those proposed protections under American law for a VERY LONG TIME.

If that were the case, then it wouldn't make sense for the US to hold out on ratifying the Convention.

Just recently, I read of a new law being passed in one US state (I forget which one) to allow parents to give permission for their children to be corporeally punished at school a certain number of times a month (maybe it was once a month, or something like that). It seems that some parents actually want other people to beat their children (or whip, or smack or "spank", or whatever it is you want to call it).

It sounds like this is the kind of thing that would breach the Convention, and maybe this is one reason why the US doesn't want to ratify it.

 

[James R]

.... The opposition is primarily based on fears of U.N. interference in U.S. laws and families. The biggest worry appears to be that the treaty will undermine parental rights even though the Convention explicitly grants responsibilities and protections to parents and guardians. One of the alarms raised by ParentalRights.org, an organization that supports a parental-rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is that the Convention will prevent parents from spanking their children or opting them out of sex education. We won’t go into why some people cling so tenaciously to their “right” to hit children. But the Convention does not require us to choose between the rights of children and the rights of parents — it protects both.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/24/why-is-the-us-against-childrens-rights/#ixzz27wqHGYSv

 

[Asguard]

The very first thing we are taught in the child safe environments course is that you MUST be child focused. "Parents rights" are a myth, it's parents responsibilities and CHILD'S rights which is something to few adults acknowledge sadly, parents, guardians, goverments and ever adult living has that responsibility

James from what I have read its articals 12, 14, 28, 29 and 37 that the US bulks at

Basically the right to chose your own religion, the right to education and the right not to be beaten. Australia has also bulked at that interpretation of artical 37 as well which is odd concidering in common law hitting your children is still illegal. Currently you can get away with it if you use ONLY an open hand and it leaves no red mark which is impossible. I can't remember what the cop who was auditing our lecturer said exactly but it went along the lines putting your hands on someone is automatically battery which is automatically criminal assault but a defense is you did no damage (something like that)

 

[Buddha12]

Why not ask the President of Syria why he continues to bomb his own children where he thinks terrorists are hiding? It seems that laws aren't going to protect children when the leaders of many countries sign this agreement and yet never actually follow it.

 

[James R]

Australia has also bulked at that interpretation of artical 37 as well which is odd concidering in common law hitting your children is still illegal. Currently you can get away with it if you use ONLY an open hand and it leaves no red mark which is impossible. I can't remember what the cop who was auditing our lecturer said exactly but it went along the lines putting your hands on someone is automatically battery which is automatically criminal assault but a defense is you did no damage (something like that)

As I understand it, there is an exception for "reasonable chastisement" of children (and I think that's in the common law).

 

[Asguard]

Not according to both a police Sargent and long term child protection expert and a Families SA child safe environment facilitator (i cant remember his other title but basically hes the person in charge of child protection for both the ambulance service and st john) and yes I was talking about common law. Criminal law gives no exception, any threatening actions towards anyone which include physical touching is criminal assault, there is no relationship exceptions, no age exceptions its an absolute, common law gives the exception I listed before. This is quite fresh in my memory, only did the course last weekend

 

[Asguard]

I think I found the issue, i belive what you might be referring to is this:

In New South Wales, S61AA of the Crimes Act (1900) allows a parent a defense of lawful correction. source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s61aa.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_in_the_home#Australia

That would only be NSW specific as its state law, wonder how that law would go in a high court challenge against the international convention.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Why is it that the US is one of only 2 countries in the world who haven't ratified the convention on the rights of the child?

I don't think anyone in the U.S. with the exception of international law experts can correctly answer your question. I *suspect* an answer might look something like this:

* Some of the articles are not rights but instead are directives. Directives are better suited for dictatorships, not a democratic republic which the U.S. theoretically has.
* Many of the articles use subjective words and phrases. A failure of any rights document is an absence of objective clarity because nobody will know what constitues compliance or violation of those rights. That of course means that the people with the most money will purchase whatever interpretation they desire and the articles then become a tool of special interests. The U.S. already has critical problems with special interests and I don't think it wants more.
* Many of the articles make it the government's job to keep children safe. The U.S. is a country of personal freedom, not personal safety. Personal safety enforcement by the government is a violation of personal freedom and thus incompatible with the U.S. constitution.

 

[Asguard]

I don't think anyone in the U.S. with the exception of international law experts can correctly answer your question. I *suspect* an answer might look something like this:

* Some of the articles are not rights but instead are directives. Directives are better suited for dictatorships, not a democratic republic which the U.S. theoretically has.
* Many of the articles use subjective words and phrases. A failure of any rights document is an absence of objective clarity because nobody will know what constitues compliance or violation of those rights. That of course means that the people with the most money will purchase whatever interpretation they desire and the articles then become a tool of special interests. The U.S. already has critical problems with special interests and I don't think it wants more.
* Many of the articles make it the government's job to keep children safe. The U.S. is a country of personal freedom, not personal safety. Personal safety enforcement by the government is a violation of personal freedom and thus incompatible with the U.S. constitution.

1) are you calling Australia, Canada and the UK dictatorships? Australia was the first country to ratify the treaty from what i can find

2) that's a cope out, there is nothing "Special interest" about protecting children's rights, you ratified the convention on civil and political rights, you laud your bill of rights all over the world, its a complete cope out to claim that this document would be used for anything other than to protect the rights and interests of children and families

3) This IS a document about personal freedom, the right to be alive, the right to chose your own religion, the right to an education, the right to an opinion expressed how you can and the right for that opinion to be acknowledged.

No, those a piss poor excuses and it goes back to a person vs property thing, sadly the US is one of the only countries in the world which still sees children as property, the rest of the world sees them as people with there own interests and needs. Its called being child focused rather than adult focused.

Example there was a picture put up on a news site this morning of a toddler with a sign around there neck saying that they defecated in the shower and so dad is going to use this picture senior year and then put it on Facebook. Now lots of people were trying to make excuses for the father, that he was joking, that he didn't mean any harm, that its not as bad as other forms of abuse etc etc but in the end that's all irrelevant, the only relevant information is "how will this effect the child? does this have the potential to or will this have a negative effect? If yes someone such as myself MUST report if on duty and has a moral obligation to report at all other times and then Family services will determine the appropriate level of response from support and training for the parents (and financial support in a lot of cases of neglect) right up to the most extreme and last option being removal when the danger to the child outweighs the ability for support to cope with.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

1) are you calling Australia, Canada and the UK dictatorships? Australia was the first country to ratify the treaty from what i can find

I don't think any permutation of the words I used states anything about Australia, Canada, or the UK.

2) that's a cope out, there is nothing "Special interest" about protecting children's rights, you ratified the convention on civil and political rights, you laud your bill of rights all over the world, its a complete cope out to claim that this document would be used for anything other than to protect the rights and interests of children and families

The phrase is "cop-out", not "cope out". It's a slang phrase that means "excuse designed to shirk responsibility" and the concept isn't really applicable to what I stated. I'll attempt to paraphrase my response as I suspect that what I originally stated might not be understood. First and foremost, I am presenting a speculative position as I cannot speak for international law experts in the U.S.. The rights document has many articles that use words and phrases that can mean many things to many people. That is bad because without clear and consistent meaning, there is no way to tell if anyone is complying with the articles in question or violating them. Lawyers in the U.S. are trained to recognize poorly written legal documents and influence a court to interpret them however their clients wish. It's a costly process; however, groups of people will pool their money together to do this. That is very much the norm in the U.S.. So whether or not the articles were intended for a child's protection, many of them are poorly written and would mean whatever lawyers were paid to make it mean.

3) This IS a document about personal freedom, the right to be alive, the right to chose your own religion, the right to an education, the right to an opinion expressed how you can and the right for that opinion to be acknowledged.

Your assessment about what the document is about is incorrect. It says explicitly "...best for children in a situation, and what is critical to life and protection from harm."; however, that is neither here nor there. Your response didn't match up to what I stated so I'll paraphrase. Many (but not all) of the articles in the document force the government to keep children safe. The U.S. government is under constitutional decree to keep all of its citizens free. When you apply safety, it necessarily must come at the cost of freedom. That is a violation in the U.S..

No, those a piss poor excuses and it goes back to a person vs property thing, sadly the US is one of the only countries in the world which still sees children as property, the rest of the world sees them as people with there own interests and needs. Its called being child focused rather than adult focused.

The notion of children being seen as property in the U.S. is some kind of bizarre fantasy-delusion. It's like me stating that your country is one of the only countries in the world which still ritualistically beats baby seals before breakfast.

Example there was a picture put up on a news site this morning of a toddler with a sign around there neck saying that they defecated in the shower and so dad is going to use this picture senior year and then put it on Facebook. Now lots of people were trying to make excuses for the father, that he was joking, that he didn't mean any harm, that its not as bad as other forms of abuse etc etc but in the end that's all irrelevant, the only relevant information is "how will this effect the child? does this have the potential to or will this have a negative effect? If yes someone such as myself MUST report if on duty and has a moral obligation to report at all other times and then Family services will determine the appropriate level of response from support and training for the parents (and financial support in a lot of cases of neglect) right up to the most extreme and last option being removal when the danger to the child outweighs the ability for support to cope with.

As crazy as that dad is, it is a violation in the United States to keep his child safe from that kind of craziness.