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!
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
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
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.
"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
?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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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!
@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.
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.
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.
I do wish some of you guys at least checked facts rather than prejudice before writing. "Worthless UN". Well, you may like to ponder why the UN has not been as effective as it should have been. How about, the nations most obligated under the UN Charter to ensure it worked have mainly been the nations who have reneged on their duties. Nations who do not pay their dues, nations who veto actions (the Russians and the US) and who allow their client states to flout its decisions. But was it worthless that the UN system enabled the eradication worldwide of one of history's greatest scourges, smallpox? That was what the UN is about, global action for global good. The US, nor Russia, nor China could have done that alone, it took the medical services and sciences of all nations, sharing and co-operating. We could do the same with polio soon, other diseases likewise - another 50 years, you say. The UNCRC has set standards and children benefit already worldwide through sharing and co-operation. Grow up and read around. Kids lives in the UK are benefiting, and parents retain all their rights and responsibilities, the UN hasn't taken them over. Why do you think it will happen in the US? Are you all woosses that you'll all roll over. The US has signed many treaties and you are still free and sovereign. This one is no different, especially as it's aspirational not executive and has no executive machinery such as a court of children's rights etc. Parents will remain parents and, under the CRCs definition, the primary carers. Now, if you insist this means e.g. children have no rights when it comes to deciding their faith, then not only is there a problem with the CRC but I suspect with the US Constitution and First Amendment.
@suziQ225: There is nothing in the treaty that puts the UN in charge of deciding who is acting in the best interest of the child. The opinions of the committee on the rights of the child would not be binding on the United States. And the treaty does not prevent parents from directing their child's upbringing, thought it does reaffirm a child's right to free speech, free religion, etc. The US Constitution also protect children's freedom of speech and religion. That would be the only applicable legal standard, not the opinions of the UN.
@barackodinga: That's a fair point. I think the biggest reason to ratify is to reinforce American moral authority in the promotion and protection of human rights. When we speak out against other countries' human rights abuses, they have plenty of talking points about why the American record isn't that great either. Ratifying the CRC would remove one of those talking points.
So look, I'm not staying up late at night worried about the well-being of American children because we haven't ratified this document. The US actually has a very positive record on children's rights, and in those areas where we can improve, I recognize that they can be fixed through the domestic political process. But there's really no harm in ratifying this document, and it would send a very positive message to child advocates throughout the world, where children are facing really dire situations. But to be honest this treaty has absolutely no chance of going anywhere because there are enough people who oppose it that senators are too scared to give it any serious thought. So, way to go. You guys really showed the rest of the world who's boss.
Other countries that have ratified this treaty have used it as an excuse to errode parental authority in ways that have profoundly harmed children and families. We have enough problems in our country without giving liberal activist judges another tool to use against children and families.
There is a word for this hypocrisy: fascism. Those who fear the truth do not want to report things as they are. They do not want to give anyone an opportunity to make the case against what is considered to be our prevailing cultural orthodoxy. Our news is managed in this country just as much as it is in out-and-out dictatorships, except that the news is managed to the left here quite voluntarily by people who are on a mission to marginalize and demonize anyone and anything which does not conform in lockstep with dogmatic leftist orthodoxy.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
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
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
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.
(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
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
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.
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.
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!
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.
@barackodinga: That's a fair point. I think the biggest reason to ratify is to reinforce American moral authority in the promotion and protection of human rights. When we speak out against other countries' human rights abuses, they have plenty of talking points about why the American record isn't that great either. Ratifying the CRC would remove one of those talking points.
So look, I'm not staying up late at night worried about the well-being of American children because we haven't ratified this document. The US actually has a very positive record on children's rights, and in those areas where we can improve, I recognize that they can be fixed through the domestic political process. But there's really no harm in ratifying this document, and it would send a very positive message to child advocates throughout the world, where children are facing really dire situations. But to be honest this treaty has absolutely no chance of going anywhere because there are enough people who oppose it that senators are too scared to give it any serious thought. So, way to go. You guys really showed the rest of the world who's boss.
who fear the truth do not want to report things as they
are. They do not want to give anyone an opportunity to
make the case against what is considered to be our
prevailing cultural orthodoxy. Our news is managed in
this country just as much as it is in out-and-out
dictatorships, except that the news is managed to the
left here quite voluntarily by people who are on a
mission to marginalize and demonize anyone and anything
which does not conform in lockstep with dogmatic leftist
orthodoxy.