31 GOP Senators Oppose U.N. Children's Rights Convention

iStockPhoto

Thirty-one Republican senators are cosponsoring a resolution opposing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to the conservative group ParentalRights.org, which is pushing the resolution.

The resolution, which you can read here, states that the convention "undermines traditional principles" of U.S. law and calls efforts to sign on to the treaty "contrary to principles of self-government and federalism." It says the convention should not be put before the Senate for a vote.

As Mother Jones reports, the legally-binding U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child was issued in 1989 to establish rights across country lines for citizens under the age of 18. The only members of the U.N. not to have signed on are the U.S. and Somalia, though the latter plans to ratify it this year.

American conservatives have long opposed ratification out of fear that it will impinge on their right to raise their children as they see fit. Among the complaints on the ParentalRights.org website, which is led by homeschooling advocate Michael Farris, is that under the treaty parents "would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings" to their kids.

Former UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy argues that the United States' decision not to sign the treaty has undermined U.S. leadership when it comes to protecting children around the world.

How, she asks, "can the United States persuasively convince other governments to address sexual exploitation of children or hazardous child labor when those same governments can point to the US' failure to ratify the Convention as evidence of US hypocrisy?"

Two-thirds of the Senate would have to ratify the treaty, which is why ParentalRights.org has set a goal of getting 34 cosponsors to its resolution. It is also pushing a Constitutional amendment called "The Parental Rights Amendment" to fend off "the attack on the child-parent relationship" and "ensure that the courts of our nation protect the fundamental right of parents to raise their children."

Seven Republican senators have signed on to the amendment, the group said, led by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.

There is no sign that Senate Democrats are poised to bring the convention to the floor for ratification during the current session.

You can read the entire convention here. The claim that it would outlaw spanking is grounded in the provision that "No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," according to ParentalRights.org.

According to University of North Carolina School of Medicine researchers, however, only 24 countries have banned all forms of corporal punishment at school and at home, while 193 countries have signed onto the treaty.

[nh4ronpaul]

Any Senator who votes for any UN treaty, convention, or resolution should be VOTED OUT. The UN is not our government and they should stop trying to be WORLD GOVERNMENT. We have our Constitution and nothing more.... GET US OUT!

[EricPotterMD]

Good evening,
I am thankful that a number of commentors have stood up to the name-calling of the anti-spankers.
This is a complicated issue, one requiring much reading to truly understand what is at stake. I have spent over 2 years on this issue working with Parental Rights.Org as a volunteer simply because the evidence I have found points to one conclusion: The UN CRC is a ploy to intrude into the life of the family. As a recent C-FAM article noted, it has failed to end child trafficking and other problems, yet it is being used by progressives in various countries to limit the freedom of parents to raise their own children according to their own values.
To read more of my opinion, go to my blog www.parentalrightstn.blogspot.com. This treaty is not good for children. The argument that this treaty is necessary to maintain our standing in the world is like saying a sober person should sign a "no alcohol" pledge along with a bunch of drunks.

Sincerely,
Eric Potter MD
Tennessee Director for Parental Rights.Org

[PDeverit]

The right to swing my fist [or hand, belt, paddle, strap, switch, cane, etc.] ends where the other man's nose [or any other part of the anatomy] begins.
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Elizabeth-Conley]

It is sad to see that those of us who object to the ratification of this treaty are being labeled as proponents of child abuse. The spanking remark is a shameful red-herring ploy with predictable results. The idealogues on both extremes of that issue have hijacked the debate, to the detriment of reasoned discourse on the actual topic at hand.

We object because we know how this treaty has been misused in other countries. It has been used to remove parental ability to educate their children to a higher standard than offered in government schools, and negate parental authority to protect their children against abuse and neglect from government authorities and institutions.

In the U.S. many public schools are embarrassingly low-functioning, and government agencies have demonstrated time and time again that they don't know what is in the best interests of children. Countless children have suffered irreparable harm and even death at the hands of the state, which never seems to know when it is overstepping its bounds. To give already narcissistic, incompetent government agencies more power to damage American children and families is foolish.

Let's not risk it.

[PDeverit]

"Reasonable and moderate"? You decide.
(WARNING - This sound recording may be deeply disturbing to some listeners. Do not open this file if children are within listening range).
http://nospank.net/prj-006.wav

Schoolchildrens' "spanking" related injuries (WARNING - These images may be deeply disturbing to some viewers. Do not open this page if children are present).
http://nospank.net/a7-05.pdf

[PDeverit]

?The right to swing my fist [or hand, belt, paddle, strap, switch, cane, etc.] ends where the other man's nose [or any other part of the anatomy] begins.?
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

[PDeverit]

Many decent parents don't want to hit their children. They simply feel at a loss as to what they can do.

For the staunch proponents of child bottom-battering, I would pose a few questions about the "right way to do it".

1- What is the youngest age at which you may begin "spanking" them? The oldest age?

2-Do you strike their buttocks with your hand, or with a "neutral object" (as is recommended by religious fundamentalists as James Dobson).

3-Do you pin them across your lap? Position them over the back of a chair? or require them to "grab their ankles"?

4-Do you strike their buttocks over their pants/skirts? Or do you pull down/require them to pull down their pants/raise their skirts? Do you pull down/require them to pull down their underwear?

5- How many times do you strike their buttocks? Should there be a pre-measured amount of times, or do you strike them until you see "genuine tears" (as is recommended by James Dobson).

6- Should your "spanking" leave visible marks? If so, what type of marks (redness, welts, bruising) and how long may they last?

6- Should boys be "spanked" differently than girls?

7- Should a stepfather be allowed to "spank" their errant teenage daughters?

8-Why is this method suitable only for those age 18 and under?

After clarification, you should also provide an instructional video on "the right way to do it", or supply photographs with your instructions.

[krharr6]

The USA should not be involved in following international law. We are a country that LEADS in freedom. Children do not belong to the State as did Hitler's Jungen. State must not be allowed to take over the parental role unless the proper legal channels CURRENTLY in our laws demonstrate legal parental incapability.

[korysgal]

Bravo! What a pleasant surprise to post a comment, and have a well-thought-out response with no name-calling or nastiness! I wish all posters were so level-headed and thoughtful! I agree that parents do not immediatly, upon birthing their children, have access to all of the great parenting wisdom of the ages, but my concern with this treaty is that it seems to assume that parents have NO instinctive parenting wisdom. My fear is that the same kind of government intrusion that has happened with healthcare (starting out decades ago as help for elderly and orphans, and morphing into mandated coverage for everyone) is the same sort of intrusion that will happen with parenting decisions (starting as protecting children from the most abusive situations, such as trafficking, etc., but in future decades morphing into the government making decisions regarding education, what the child is allowed to eat, watch on TV, how many chores they can do, what books they can read, etc...) Twenty years ago, parents would have been mortified if they were told that their 16-year old daughters could go to a doctor and obtain abortifacient drugs without their knowledge, and yet the government has paved the way for that to happen. These types of laws passed in the name of "protecting" our children assume that kids know better than their parents. If my precious daughter made some bad decisions and got herself into that situation, I would not want a counselor who has known her for 15 minutes disregarding both my responsibility and privilege as her parent to be the one to advise her on the best course of action to take. My fear is that the same thought process the government used to enact that law will be carried over into every area of parenting. I have heard of several cases lately where parents are not being allowed to remove their children from class when a movie is being shown that they feel is objectionable or when a book is being read that they do not want their children reading. I am afraid that we are on a path toward government control of our children, but the increase is so gradual that most of us don't even notice what is happening.

[korysgal]

OOPS! The above reply was intended for a different comment. Sorry for the confusion!

[jan-cosgrove1945]

I viewed this. Painful to view, shameful. This is what some folk want to claim as a right over their children? At home, there are no witnesses. Such acts are banned in UK schools, there are those who clamour fr its return of course. To want to be able to do this to your child is perverse. The PRA brigade actually want a US Constitutional amendment that will protect their 'right' to do this? Are the GOP Senators aware of what they are signing up to? From over here, we shake our heads in disbelief. Here we have governments that say parents have a right of reasonable chastisement but what does that mean? No one here seems to agree least of all the lawyers.

[korysgal]

Showing pictures of abused children as a reason to outlaw spanking is like showing pictures of a horrible car wreck as a reason to oppose driving. Taking a 2x4 to your child's back is not the same thing as a little slap on the rear. Just because a small percentage of parents do "beat" their children does not mean that every parent who spanks is doing so inappropriately. Every kid is different. One child may respond to a time-out or a stern look, but some kids need that well-placed swat to the tush to get their attention. I also find it interesting (from my own experience) that the friends of ours who do not spank tend to have the most poorly-behaved and disrespectful kids.

Also, if you are only reading this news story, you are getting an extremely slanted view of the treaty. America operates on a philosophy of "the parents know best." This treaty essentially changes that philosophy to "the government knows best" as well as a sprinkling of "the child knows best." What the GOP senators are trying to do is protect the rights of parents to bring up their children as they see best.

If you really want to understand the position of the GOP senators, visit www.parentalrights.org.

[jan-cosgrove1945]

The problem with that argument is that there is no clear definition possible of what constitutes the difference between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' levels of physical punishment that can tell parents how far is acceptable with their child. In the UK the law has been amended so that 'reasonable chastisement' is now not accepted as a defence in cases of serious injury but it can be for what would be common assault in adults. But when an adult is paddling a kid, even with hands, the anger often involved creates the all-too-real danger of over-reaction. It is also the case that if we did to an adult, to 'correct' them, what is allowed to be done to children by parents, we would face a criminal prosecution. Whether it went to court would depend on exact circumstances and there might be allowable defences but it is case-by-case not the blanket sanction allowed by current law. So, with my small grandson, walking with me and crossing the road, he needs to be holding my hand. He pulls away (he is 3.5 years) says 'no', I take his hand firmly, speak quietly and tell him he has to and why. This behaviour persists and one day he nearly breaks away and I say 'I have told you before Danny, you have to or a car might hurt you' etc, he does it again and I did warn him I would smack his hand. So I carry out my threat, one small slap for small mankind, one small step for survival. If witnessed and reported, I would be able to show good cause, including that Danny's ego overcomes his power of reason due to his age and that this was for his safety. I have to say change in my tone is usually far more effective on most occasions. By the way, I cannot see the UNCRC being invoked to ban that action but I can see we might all have to think that we may have to justify our actions more carefully. Assault is assault, it's often used, as I have seen, far too often and carelessly. The lioness cuffs her cub but not unnecessarily. Humans need to learn the same trick. The law can change to encourage that. The CRC is aspirational and its architects maybe envisioned a world where regular, habitual, injurious and abusive 'correction' of children becomes a thing of the past. An aim not a command. You don't want to see that day? In the end, it's education, and parents do not suddenly emerge as all knowing all-wise the minute their kids are born, they can learn, and there are societal norms which evolve over time. Hitting women and workers was deemed fine once, times and attitudes changed. Same thing here.

[suziQ225]

First of all, make sure you read more than just this article if you want to know the real issues of the UNCRC and the Parental Rights Amendment. I am shocked at how slanted this article is and how much necessary information is completely left out! People need to know that the US Constitution is set up so that any ratified treaty trumps national law. This means that IF the USA ratifies the UNCRC, then we loose our national sovreignty when it comes to parental rights. This is about SO much more than the right to spank a child. It is about all the fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children; from medical treatment to education choices. We already have laws protecting children, and we have government agencies set up to step in where there is real abuse. We do not need the UN to "become government nannies" nor would we trust them to truly act in "the best interest of the child".

[KitsapGirl]

Thank you! The UNCRC sounds good on the surface, but there's many troubling parts to it.

Article 8 part 2 "Where a child is legally deprived of some or all of the elements of their identity, States Parties shall provide proper assistance and protection, with a view of re-establishing speedily his or her identity"

Does this mean that a child of any age has the right to know they were the product of a rape, or from a donor, or ....?

This clause, and many more like it in the resolution are too vague, and do not take into account the age of the child, the maturity of the child, nor the parental right to determine such. With the runaway sue-happy legal system we have here in the US, who gets to decide when to tell little 5 year old johnny that his daddy raped mommy, and we don't know who he is? The courts? Mommy? The doctor? Someone from CPS?

It's a nightmare. The UNCRC sounds nice, but is a huge can of worms!

[cef1024]

@KitsapGirl: That does sound like a really terrible situation, but I disagree that it would fall under the provision that you quoted. It looks to me like the section you quoted is meant to protect children who, for example, have their birth records or proof of citizenship revoked. For example, if a family of political refugees escapes to Europe, the State from which they fled may revoke their legal documents. This puts the children in a particularly vulnerable situation because many child services are connected to a child's age and identity. Under the CRC, States would provide assistance in trying to get official evidence of the child's identity. I think it's more about preserving the child's identity in the eyes of the law (hence the phrase "where a child is LEGALLY deprived"), not about giving the child access to it whenever they want. Parents would still have the right to choose when and how a child learns the various elements of their identity. So, if a child was born after a woman was raped by some sort of government official, if that official ordered their name removed from the child's birth certificate, the State would have an obligation to assist the family in getting that information back.

[cef1024]

Opposition to ratification of the CRC is ridiculous and frankly embarrassing.

1.- The CRC has two optional protocols which the UN has already ratified. One is on the sale of children, child pornography, and sex trafficking, and the other is on children in armed conflict. Does that mean that child pornography never happens in the US? Of course not. And when it does happen, does the UN swoop in and arrest anyone? No. It's enforced by national courts.

2.- Although the constitution states that treaties become the law of the land, US courts have held that there is a difference between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. A self-executing treaty immediately becomes law, while non-self-executing treaty must be implemented through separate legislation. For example, our treaty obligations under the Convention Against Torture are implemented through the Torture Victim Protection Act among other statutes. US courts interpret a treaty to be self-executing only when it explicitly states it is self-executing, and the US government either would not ratify a self-executing human rights treaty or they'd take a reservation to the self-executing provision. So the idea that we would have some kind of "UN standard" or "Indonesian standard" or "Sharia standard" (???) is absolutely false.

3.- As others have stated, the US can take reservations to treaties. It's true that they cannot violate the object and purpose of the treaty, but even that standard is up to interpretation. Does it violate the object and purpose of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights that the US continues to use the death penalty? Some may argue so, but the US has consistently argued otherwise and you don't see UN police swooping in and putting a halt to executions. It's true that the committee on the rights of the child has issued statements that would seem to indicate that corporal punishment violates the treaty, but their "general comments" are NOT binding on the States that have ratified the convention. If you look at human rights treaties that the US has ratified, they typically contain reservations to anything that would conflict with current US law. There would probably be a reservation to corporal punishment, a reservation about federalism, and many others. You all need to chill.

4.- If we ratified this convention, do you know what would happen? Absolutely nothing. There would be no UN folks breaking up families or forcing homeschooled children to go to public school or blocking parents from taking their children to church. A group of very talented lawyers at the state department (watched over carefully by republican staffers on the senate foreign relations committee) would craft a set of reservations, understandings, and declarations that make it clear that the United States is in compliance with the treaty (we are, by the way, because all this talk about parents being arrested for spanking their kids is just wrong). What WOULD change is that the US would have a renewed ability to advocate for children's rights around the globe. Once somalia ratifies this thing we will be the sole holdout. And it's not going to be for some well thought out principled US reason. It's going to be because of a vocal minority with a sketchy grasp over what this treaty actually says.

[suziQ225]

Perhaps nothing would change immediately if the US ratifies the UNCRC, but follow it down the road 10-50 years... where is it going? Its about more than child porn and under-age soldiers, its about taking away a parent's right to direct their child's upbringing and puts the state or UN in charge of deciding who is really acting in the best interest of the child.

[barackodinga]

You make a really good argument to NOT ratify this treaty. You say it will do absolutely nothing so why sign on to another worthless UN agreement?