‘Narcissistic Sovereignty’ Has Kept U.S. from Ratifying U.N. Treaty on Children’s Rig

From Home School Legal Defense:

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000021.asp

After years of debate within the international community, child’s rights activists reached an agreement in 1988 which created a comprehensive charter advancing the agenda of the children’s “liberation” movement. What the child’s rights advocates have for over two decades been unable to accomplish through the normal legislative process, may now be realized in one sweeping blow.

If ratified by the U.S. Senate, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child would undermine families by granting to children a list of radical “rights” which would be primarily enforced against the parents. These new “fundamental” rights would include “the right to privacy,” “the right to freedom of thought and association,” and the right to “freedom of expression.” Such presumptions subvert the authority of parents to exercise important responsibilities toward their children. Under the UN Convention, parental responsibility exists only in so far as parents are willing to further the independent choices of the child.

The Convention Would Become Supreme Law of the Land

Under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause of Article VI Section.2, “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

In Missouri v. Holland, (252 U.S. 416), the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Supremacy Clause a treaty made by the President, with concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate present at the time of voting, would become the supreme law and take precedent over contrary state laws. Thus, the U.N. Convention would constitute legally binding law in all 50 states. Otherwise valid state laws pertaining to education, the family, etc., which conflict with the provisions of the treaty will be subject to invalidation.

Were this convention to be ratified, the United States would be required to alter large portions of long established law to cater to the demands of the United Nations.

The Convention Would Give Children the “Right” to Disregard Parental Authority

Although several of the treaty’s provisions offer generally positive, nonoffensive platitudes, a substantial portion of this charter undermines parental rights. Some of the more relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are summarized below.

Severe Limitations Placed on the Parents’ Right to Train Their Children

Under Article 13, any attempts to prevent their children from interacting with material parents deem unacceptable is forbidden. Children are vested with a “ freedom of expression” right, which is virtually absolute. No allowance is made for parental guidance. Section 1 declares a child’s right 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.”

In Article 14, children are guaranteed “ freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” Children have a legal right to object to all religious training. Alternatively, children may assert their right against parental objection to participate in the occult.

Article 15 declares “the right of the child to freedom of association.” Parents could be prevented from forbidding their child to associate with people deemed to be objectionable companions. Under Article 15, children could claim a “fundamental” right to join gangs, cults, and racist organizations over parental objection.

The Convention Would Entrench the Right of Teenagers to Abort Their Babies

Under Article 16, the “right to privacy” is granted to children. This UN sanctioned “privacy” would seemingly establish as the child’s right to obtain an abortion without parental notice, the right to purchase and use contraceptives, and the right to pornography in the home.

New Bureaucracies Would Be Created to Monitor Families

Article 19 mandates the creation of an intensive bureaucracy for the purpose of “identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment, and follow-up” of parents who, in violation of the child’s rights, treat their children negligently.

To insure State and U.N. control over their development, Article 7 requires all children must be immediately registered at birth.

A Prohibition On Corporal Punishment

Articles 3, 19, 37 require all ratifying countries to protect children from “degrading punishment” and “physical violence” which includes corporal punishment. The U.N. Committee of Ten (pursuant to Article 44) must oversee the implementation of the treaty. Over the last several years, the Committee published reports criticizing several countries (including Canada and Great Britain) for allowing corporal punishment to continue.

Mandatory Outcome Based Education

The American Bar Association’s 1990 publication Children’s Rights in America: U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child Compared to U.S. Law states that Article 29 will force public and private schools in America to adopt “federally prescribed curriculum content.” Each child must be prepared to be a responsible citizen by having “the spirit of understanding, peace, toleration, equity of sexes, and friendship [for] all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups of indigenous origin.” All children must be taught the principles of the treaty. This is OBE mandated curriculum of the worst sort.

Can the United States Amend the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child?

According to Articles 50 and 51, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child can only be amended through a four step process. First, at least one-third of the nations must favor a conference even to discuss an amendment. Once a conference is convened, a majority of the nations present at the conference must vote to adopt the amendment. Then it must be submitted to the full General Assembly for approval. If the amendment is approved by the General Assembly, it must be then be accepted by two-thirds of the participating nations. The great difficulty in amending this Treaty is unthinkable. Furthermore, “A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.”

Will This Treaty be Enforced in the United States?

Our own Constitution requires us to enforce all treaties as the “supreme law” of the land. Also, Article 4 of the Treaty, makes it clear that the signatory nations are bound to “undertake legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights” specified in the Convention.

Toward this ends, the Convention sets up a committee to review the progress of signatory nations called the Committee on the Rights of the Child (also called the Committee of Ten). Examples of the Committee’s oversight of the various nations which have ratified the Convention, are seen in recent reports called, “Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child.”

In a 1995 report the Committee heavily criticized Britain for not implementing many aspects of the treaty stating

The Committee is deeply worried … regarding judicial interpretations … permitting the reasonable chastisement in case of physical abuse of children within the family context. Thus the Committee is concerned that legislative and other measures relating to the physical integrity of children do not appear compatible with the provisions and principles of the Convention … The Committee is equally concerned that privately funded and managed schools are still permitted to administer corporal punishment to children.


Essentially the Committee is pointing out that spanking, which is still allowed in Britain, is a violation of the treaty.

Regarding Britain’s allowing parents to exclude their children from school (which includes home schooling), the Committee expressed concern that “the right of the child to express his or her opinion is not solicited.”

In 1997, when one of the delgates from Australia argued that the Convention did not specifically forbid spanking, the Committee disagreed stating

[T]he Convention should be interpreted holistically taking into consideration not only its specific provisions, but also the general principals which inspired it.


In other words, the Convention means what the Committee of Ten says it means.

The 1998 report on Japan equally disturbing,

[T]he convention on the Rights of the Child has precedence over domestic legislation and can be invoked before the domestic courts ...


France was evaluated in the 2004 Final Observations of the Committee and, along with a variety of issues, the Committee addressed the area of corporal punishment. They recommend that the State party “expressly prohibit corporal punishment by law in the family, in schools, in institutions and in other childcare settings.” They also recommend “awareness-raising and promotion of positive, non-violent forms of discipline, especially in families.”

These reports further confirm the United Nations belief that all nations who sign the Children’s Convention are obligated to apply its mandates which override the country’s own domestic law. This is a direct usurpation of national sovereignty.

Prepared by the legal staff of the National Center for Home Education. Reprint permission granted, P.O. Box 3000, Purcellville, VA 20134, (540) 330-7600