Parents across the nation have possessed the right to direct the upbringing of their children for centuries. One of the critical and essential rights included under parental rights is the ability to determine where their children are educated. Whether parents choose to place their children in public, private, parochial, charter, special needs, or home schools, the choice has always been placed in the hands of parents. Why? School Choice New York, a pro-school choice group, poses the question this way: “Who knows a child best? The parents! Children deserve the right to attend a school that serves their needs.”
There are three reasons for parental involvement in school choice. First, children need parental involvement for their own best interest. The Justice Foundation notes that “parental rights are fundamental to the family and a healthy culture. If no child is to be left behind, then no parent should be left out.” In the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979—the act which created the US Department of Education, the US Congress specifically noted that “parents have the primary responsibility for the education of their children,” and that “states, localities, and private institutions have the primary responsibility for supporting that parental role.” Parents have this “primary responsibility” because in the main they know best how to provide for their children, and should generally be trusted to make those decisions.
Especially during their formative years, children need to have the guidance of their parents. By virtue of living for a much longer time than their children, parents have useful experiences to guard their children from danger and drive them toward a better life. As children move into their teens, the guidance of their parents over the past decade builds trust between parent and child to both allow the younger to grow and explore their world while still relying on the wise counsel of the elder. Parental guidance, especially in education, is serving the best interest of the child.
Charter schools, among other alternatives to public education, have consistently proven themselves to be comparable, if not better, than their public counterparts. Studies also indicate that parental involvement tends to lead to higher academic achievement by their children, since Mom and Dad are interested in what they are learning. Children also benefit from greater self-esteem and parent-child relationships when parents are involved in their education, and parents benefit from better knowing the education which their children are receiving. The child’s best interest must include the rights of parents to be actively involved in the learning and selection process of education.
Second, parents can best determine whether their children have special education needs requiring a special learning environment to maximize learning. Joseph Blast and Herbert Walberg note that US education experts who work for the government “tend to assign students to large, something-for-everyone neighborhood schools (to capture economies of scale) based on where parents live (to keep transportation costs low), with exceptions allowed only for disruptive students or to achieve politically imposed racial integration goals.” Blast and Walberg lament that “While mechanistically “fair” and “efficient,” it is difficult to imagine an assignment scheme less likely to assign students to schools suited to their particular learning styles, interests, or special needs.” Parents, on the other hand, consider the particular needs of the child.
Furthermore, parent school choice provides a proven incentive for school improvement. Alex Gibson and Sheena Asthana describe parental choice in education as “the most effective engine for school improvement,” and has “emerged, and still stands, as the principal raison d’etre for education markets” (Alex Gibson and Sheena Asthana, “Local Markets and the Polarization of Public-Sector Schools in England and Wales,” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2000, 306). In England before the 1988 Education Reform Act, parents moved to districts which had good schools so that their children would be well educated, since you had to attend the school in your district (Ibid, 309). Districts differed, and thus schools also differed widely. It further meant, however, that those who could not afford to move to another district were forced to use the school in their district, even if the education there was significantly below par (Ibid). Parent school choice turned everything around, allowing parents to opt their children out of failing schools into better schools in the area. When parents choose, children win.
Finally, some parents find it necessary to choose alternate avenues for education when they find that objectionable material will be taught to their children in a school setting. Regardless of our views on sex education or homosexuality, some school districts have included homosexuality in required curriculum as early as five years of age. No five-year-old needs to know these sorts of things; they have no concept of what is being discussed, and it is not a bad thing that they have no concept of what is occurring. Certain subjects are best saved for later years, and parents in some cases prefer that their children be kept from such education in a classroom. There are other ways for children to learn about such topics—a safe, clean conversation with Mom and Dad, for example.
In some countries, parents have been fined, imprisoned, and had their children removed from their homes because parents sought to exercise the right to choose which school their child attended. In Germany, the Romeike family faced all three of these penalties because they sought alternate education from the public school in their district. A video is included in the link above, detailing the story of the Romeike family’s story in Germany. The interview also includes a discussion of the legal ramifications on American soil by Dr. Michael Farris and Mr. Michael Donnelly, the attorney for the Romeikes. The New York Times reports that Mr. Romeike removed his children from the public school because “the unruly behavior of students that was allowed by many teachers had kept his children from learning. The stories in German readers, in which devils, witches and disobedient children are often portrayed as heroes, set bad examples” for his children as well. Sadly, “the nearby private and religious schools," Mr. Romeike said, "were just as bad or even worse.” The Romeike family sought asylum in Denmark in 2008, later traveling to Canada and were finally granted asylum in Tennessee in January 2010. Parents shouldn’t need to flee their country in order to pursue the best form of education for their children—we need to take active measures to adequately protect these rights.
The primacy of parent choice in education is essential because “the family is the first cell of society, the first church, first government, first school, first hospital, first economy, and the first mediating institution of society.” In 1907, James Oliphant, wrote an article entitled, “Parental Rights and Public Education,” which was published in the International Journal of Ethics. He asserts that the strong desire to protect the rights of parental involvement is based on “a belief, based upon observation and experience, that social stability is primarily founded on family life, and that every weakening of the bond between parents and their children must have its influence on wider relations” (James Oliphant, “Parental Rights and Public Education,” International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 205-217 (January 1907), 208). This article preceded all Supreme Court decisions enumerating parental rights, and all discussion of its importance in the legal realm: we have known the power and influence of parental involvement on social stability for over a century—and arguably across the centuries from time out of mind. Parental rights need to be adequately protected for the sake of the children.
Join the fight,
Centaur
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Centaur Scrolls: The Financial Burden of the CRC
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is more that just a goodwill statement on the need to protect and provide for children across the world: ratifying the CRC also leaves substantial financial obligations on the member-state. Regardless of the size and economic stability of the nation, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (the Committee) consistently requires more and more government spending on child welfare programs.
From the reports issued by the Committee, only substantial portions of the national budget and/or GDP are accepted as pleasing sacrifices. In their concluding remarks to Mongolia, the Committee states that it “recognizes the efforts made by the State party to increase the social budget, particularly in education, which represents up to 20 percent of the national budget,” yet it recommends that the state “increase resources for children including under the Human Development Fund governing resources from extractive activities.” Apparently, 20 percent of the national budget is not enough.
In other reports, the Committee hints at percentages of GDP, not just the national budget. In the report for Ecuador, “the Committee welcomes the constitutional provision to allocate at least 5% and 6% of GDP to health and education, respectively,” while still asking that there be additional support for child welfare and education programs. While America may not be required to spend 5% ($710 billion) and 6% ($852 billion) respectively on child health and education (for a combined total of $1.56 trillion), this level of national spending has certainly not been considered enough to please the Committee. Tajikistan was commanded to “increase substantially” the proportion of their GDP; they are currently devoting 3-4% to child health and welfare.
But the worst demands from the Committee have been against the poorest countries of the world; those who cannot afford to pay, and generally tend to have the worst problems. Albania, Europe’s poorest country, has been pressured to provide additional funding of child programs despite a heavily damaged economy. Albania is one of the prime provider nation-states for human trafficking, especially for sexual slaves, because women in the country need work and are easily persuaded into the business. While the Committee applauded the to-date unsuccessful efforts of the Albanian government to reduce the number of women and children involved in sexual and human trafficking, they still required Albania to increase spending on child welfare programs such as child councils which promote free discussion while taking away valuable resources from other problems, including the sexual trafficking of women to Italy.
We find similar mandates imposed on Zimbabwe (Africa’s poorest country), Cambodia (Southeast Asia’s poorest country), and Bolivia (South America’s poorest country): there is no sympathy for weak, depressed economies. What is more, the Committee openly recognizes that high unemployment and a poor economy exist in the nation, and that this is impeding implementation of the CRC. Yet while they recognize the severely damaged state of the economy, they offer no assistance, and instead add to the demands of increased funding.
Bolivia is a particularly sad case. The poorest country in South America, Bolivia lacks both the ability to adequately enforce its current laws, let alone the demands of international agencies and governing bodies. In their recommendations, the Committee demanded that Bolivia spend its financial resources on “strengthen[ing] children’s participation in councils, forums, children’s parliaments and the like,” and “regularly review the extent to which children’s views are taken into consideration, including their impact on relevant policies and programmes” in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention. While laudable, these desires are placed on the same level as the need to combat drug trafficking, sexual slavery, and child labor. The state party lacks financial resources enough to meet current needs—how are they expected to meet new demands which are not nearly the same caliber of importance as current concerns?
What is more, the Committee demands that member-states prioritize this spending over other areas of the economy and budget: “The Committee recommends that the State party review budgetary allocations and pay particular attention to the full implementation of article 4 of the Convention by prioritizing budgetary allocations to ensure implementation of the economic, social and cultural rights of children. . . .” It is not enough to fund child welfare programs; they must be prioritized over national defense, tax breaks for businesses, and other programs which do not “ensure implementation of the economic, social, and cultural rights of children.” From what we have seen from Albania and other countries, “ensure implementation” necessitates fiscally irresponsible behavior—there is always more that can be done to solve a problem, leaving no logical stopping point for government spending.
The United Nations offers partial financial assistance (courtesy of the American taxpayer and other individuals from wealthy nations who support the United Nations) to member-states who are not able to fully implement the demands of the Committee due to monetary restraints. As Americans, however, we recognize the dangers in accepting financial aid from the government: it comes with strings attached. While we all definitely believe in providing for children and meeting their economic and cultural needs, should a foreign governing entity mandate how we spend our money? More than that, should they be able to mandate how we prioritize the spending of our money?
On April 17, 2001, the Committee on the Rights of the Child released “General Comment No. 1: The Aims of Education,” which outlines how prominent education spending should be in member-states. According to Article 28 of the General Comment, proper compliance with the demands of the committee “will require human and financial resources which should be available to the maximum extent possible.” What is meant by “to the maximum extent possible”? According to Article 28 of the General Comment, “the maximum extent possible” extends above and beyond the abilities of the economy: the Committee writes that “resource constraints cannot provide a justification for a State party’s failure to take any, or enough, of the measures that are required.”
What would they demand of us if we join? While the United States is not in the position to increase government spending, we would most certainly be required to increase national spending at a time when fiscal responsibility is in question. While the Committee has no direct jurisdiction over our national or state governments, because the CRC would be the “supreme law of the land” under Article VI of the US Constitution, the demands which it makes are tantamount to demands made by our constitution.
Furthermore, according to Article 45(d) of the Convention, the clarifications of the Committee on any article of the CRC are equivalent to the CRC itself as interpretations of its meaning and application, and thus affect state and national legislatures if we uphold our sacred honor. If by ratifying the Convention we give our word to uphold it, which should be the case if we sign our names to the document through ratification, then we either stand to significantly increase national spending or we lose our sacred honor. Neither is a pleasant option.
The Committee has further demanded that member-states increase the size of government in protecting and providing for children, expanding child welfare programs along with the need for added financial support. In the report given to Burkina Faso, the Committee recommended “that priority be given to the establishment [of] a social security system and the provision of increased material assistance and support to economically disadvantaged children. . . .” While not all social security systems are akin to the American system, the material point is that there is a motion for a new, large government agency to assist with child assistance.
As Americans who believe in fiscal responsibility, we must recognize the dangers attached to ratifying the CRC. This is not just a goodwill statement which affirms our dedication to protecting children: it is a commitment to increased government spending on child and social programs which extend beyond the intended scope of our government. The United States has ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (OPSC), as well as Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflict (OPAC), which are the primary abuses cited as reasons for ratifying the CRC. Ratification would impose added burdens on our liberties and economy while providing no additional benefit.
We also know that the United Nations has supported the Health Care Bill passed by the US Congress. Nile Gardiner notes in his article in the Telegraph that “The UN, probably the most corrupt and ineffective multilateral body on the face of the earth, which devotes much of its time trying to undermine American global power, has officially given its blessing to Barack Obama’s hugely controversial and unpopular legislation.” Margaret Chan, Director of the World Health Organization, applauded American legislators for their “unprecedented achievement.” Extensive government deficit spending on social welfare programs, it would seem, is “an unprecedented achievement” in the eyes of the United Nations.
In this same speech, she also mentioned how this bill showed US sympathy for the intent behind the Millenium Declaration passed in 2000, which stressed the importance of globalization and exorbitant government spending on foreign aid. She quotes the Declaration, where it says: “The central challenge we face today is to ensure that globalization becomes a positive force for all the world’s people. Those who suffer or benefit least deserve help from those who benefit most.” While everyone believes that a young child should not be left to die because he lacks health care, wealth distribution is by no means the most fiscally responsible way of achieving this goal. Furthermore, the United Nations is not known for its accountability and efficiency in money management.
But even more dangerous was her statement on the intent of the Declaration as it is carried out in practice: “The Declaration called on donors to harmonize their actions and make funding more predictable and sustainable. They were also asked to channel aid in support of national priorities and in ways that strengthen existing infrastructures and capacities, rather than circumventing them by building parallel structures and services.” Not only should taxpayer money be consistently funneled into this system, it should be devoted to government social welfare programs instead of “parallel structures and services,” namely, non-government health care providers who compete in a capitalistic economy.
If this is what we want, ratify the CRC. If you, like me, are appalled at the thought of foreigners breathing down our necks and making decisions for us on domestic policy and the complete mismanagement of resources and monetary supplies in the name of "helping children" without proving results, I am asking you to join me in fighting back.
The Parental Rights Amendment stands as a permanent solution to the problem: not only will it make ratification of the CRC impossible, it will also fight the expanding influence of international law through activist judges within our nation. Visit www.parentalrights.org for more information, and get involved in the war today.
Seek the truth,
Find it, and defend it to the death,
Centaur
"Will they follow me?" -- High King Peter
"To the death." -- Oreius the Centaur
From the reports issued by the Committee, only substantial portions of the national budget and/or GDP are accepted as pleasing sacrifices. In their concluding remarks to Mongolia, the Committee states that it “recognizes the efforts made by the State party to increase the social budget, particularly in education, which represents up to 20 percent of the national budget,” yet it recommends that the state “increase resources for children including under the Human Development Fund governing resources from extractive activities.” Apparently, 20 percent of the national budget is not enough.
In other reports, the Committee hints at percentages of GDP, not just the national budget. In the report for Ecuador, “the Committee welcomes the constitutional provision to allocate at least 5% and 6% of GDP to health and education, respectively,” while still asking that there be additional support for child welfare and education programs. While America may not be required to spend 5% ($710 billion) and 6% ($852 billion) respectively on child health and education (for a combined total of $1.56 trillion), this level of national spending has certainly not been considered enough to please the Committee. Tajikistan was commanded to “increase substantially” the proportion of their GDP; they are currently devoting 3-4% to child health and welfare.
But the worst demands from the Committee have been against the poorest countries of the world; those who cannot afford to pay, and generally tend to have the worst problems. Albania, Europe’s poorest country, has been pressured to provide additional funding of child programs despite a heavily damaged economy. Albania is one of the prime provider nation-states for human trafficking, especially for sexual slaves, because women in the country need work and are easily persuaded into the business. While the Committee applauded the to-date unsuccessful efforts of the Albanian government to reduce the number of women and children involved in sexual and human trafficking, they still required Albania to increase spending on child welfare programs such as child councils which promote free discussion while taking away valuable resources from other problems, including the sexual trafficking of women to Italy.
We find similar mandates imposed on Zimbabwe (Africa’s poorest country), Cambodia (Southeast Asia’s poorest country), and Bolivia (South America’s poorest country): there is no sympathy for weak, depressed economies. What is more, the Committee openly recognizes that high unemployment and a poor economy exist in the nation, and that this is impeding implementation of the CRC. Yet while they recognize the severely damaged state of the economy, they offer no assistance, and instead add to the demands of increased funding.
Bolivia is a particularly sad case. The poorest country in South America, Bolivia lacks both the ability to adequately enforce its current laws, let alone the demands of international agencies and governing bodies. In their recommendations, the Committee demanded that Bolivia spend its financial resources on “strengthen[ing] children’s participation in councils, forums, children’s parliaments and the like,” and “regularly review the extent to which children’s views are taken into consideration, including their impact on relevant policies and programmes” in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention. While laudable, these desires are placed on the same level as the need to combat drug trafficking, sexual slavery, and child labor. The state party lacks financial resources enough to meet current needs—how are they expected to meet new demands which are not nearly the same caliber of importance as current concerns?
What is more, the Committee demands that member-states prioritize this spending over other areas of the economy and budget: “The Committee recommends that the State party review budgetary allocations and pay particular attention to the full implementation of article 4 of the Convention by prioritizing budgetary allocations to ensure implementation of the economic, social and cultural rights of children. . . .” It is not enough to fund child welfare programs; they must be prioritized over national defense, tax breaks for businesses, and other programs which do not “ensure implementation of the economic, social, and cultural rights of children.” From what we have seen from Albania and other countries, “ensure implementation” necessitates fiscally irresponsible behavior—there is always more that can be done to solve a problem, leaving no logical stopping point for government spending.
The United Nations offers partial financial assistance (courtesy of the American taxpayer and other individuals from wealthy nations who support the United Nations) to member-states who are not able to fully implement the demands of the Committee due to monetary restraints. As Americans, however, we recognize the dangers in accepting financial aid from the government: it comes with strings attached. While we all definitely believe in providing for children and meeting their economic and cultural needs, should a foreign governing entity mandate how we spend our money? More than that, should they be able to mandate how we prioritize the spending of our money?
On April 17, 2001, the Committee on the Rights of the Child released “General Comment No. 1: The Aims of Education,” which outlines how prominent education spending should be in member-states. According to Article 28 of the General Comment, proper compliance with the demands of the committee “will require human and financial resources which should be available to the maximum extent possible.” What is meant by “to the maximum extent possible”? According to Article 28 of the General Comment, “the maximum extent possible” extends above and beyond the abilities of the economy: the Committee writes that “resource constraints cannot provide a justification for a State party’s failure to take any, or enough, of the measures that are required.”
What would they demand of us if we join? While the United States is not in the position to increase government spending, we would most certainly be required to increase national spending at a time when fiscal responsibility is in question. While the Committee has no direct jurisdiction over our national or state governments, because the CRC would be the “supreme law of the land” under Article VI of the US Constitution, the demands which it makes are tantamount to demands made by our constitution.
Furthermore, according to Article 45(d) of the Convention, the clarifications of the Committee on any article of the CRC are equivalent to the CRC itself as interpretations of its meaning and application, and thus affect state and national legislatures if we uphold our sacred honor. If by ratifying the Convention we give our word to uphold it, which should be the case if we sign our names to the document through ratification, then we either stand to significantly increase national spending or we lose our sacred honor. Neither is a pleasant option.
The Committee has further demanded that member-states increase the size of government in protecting and providing for children, expanding child welfare programs along with the need for added financial support. In the report given to Burkina Faso, the Committee recommended “that priority be given to the establishment [of] a social security system and the provision of increased material assistance and support to economically disadvantaged children. . . .” While not all social security systems are akin to the American system, the material point is that there is a motion for a new, large government agency to assist with child assistance.
As Americans who believe in fiscal responsibility, we must recognize the dangers attached to ratifying the CRC. This is not just a goodwill statement which affirms our dedication to protecting children: it is a commitment to increased government spending on child and social programs which extend beyond the intended scope of our government. The United States has ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (OPSC), as well as Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflict (OPAC), which are the primary abuses cited as reasons for ratifying the CRC. Ratification would impose added burdens on our liberties and economy while providing no additional benefit.
We also know that the United Nations has supported the Health Care Bill passed by the US Congress. Nile Gardiner notes in his article in the Telegraph that “The UN, probably the most corrupt and ineffective multilateral body on the face of the earth, which devotes much of its time trying to undermine American global power, has officially given its blessing to Barack Obama’s hugely controversial and unpopular legislation.” Margaret Chan, Director of the World Health Organization, applauded American legislators for their “unprecedented achievement.” Extensive government deficit spending on social welfare programs, it would seem, is “an unprecedented achievement” in the eyes of the United Nations.
In this same speech, she also mentioned how this bill showed US sympathy for the intent behind the Millenium Declaration passed in 2000, which stressed the importance of globalization and exorbitant government spending on foreign aid. She quotes the Declaration, where it says: “The central challenge we face today is to ensure that globalization becomes a positive force for all the world’s people. Those who suffer or benefit least deserve help from those who benefit most.” While everyone believes that a young child should not be left to die because he lacks health care, wealth distribution is by no means the most fiscally responsible way of achieving this goal. Furthermore, the United Nations is not known for its accountability and efficiency in money management.
But even more dangerous was her statement on the intent of the Declaration as it is carried out in practice: “The Declaration called on donors to harmonize their actions and make funding more predictable and sustainable. They were also asked to channel aid in support of national priorities and in ways that strengthen existing infrastructures and capacities, rather than circumventing them by building parallel structures and services.” Not only should taxpayer money be consistently funneled into this system, it should be devoted to government social welfare programs instead of “parallel structures and services,” namely, non-government health care providers who compete in a capitalistic economy.
If this is what we want, ratify the CRC. If you, like me, are appalled at the thought of foreigners breathing down our necks and making decisions for us on domestic policy and the complete mismanagement of resources and monetary supplies in the name of "helping children" without proving results, I am asking you to join me in fighting back.
The Parental Rights Amendment stands as a permanent solution to the problem: not only will it make ratification of the CRC impossible, it will also fight the expanding influence of international law through activist judges within our nation. Visit www.parentalrights.org for more information, and get involved in the war today.
Seek the truth,
Find it, and defend it to the death,
Centaur
"Will they follow me?" -- High King Peter
"To the death." -- Oreius the Centaur
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Centaur Scrolls: The CRC's "Freedom of Expression"
We all respect and love the freedom of expression enjoyed by US citizens under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Most international agreements dealing with civil or political rights also recognize this as a necessary right for free nations (Sylvie Langlaude, ON HOW TO BUILD A POSITIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHILD'S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, 10 HUMRLR 33, at 33). Children and minors gain the freedom of expression in international law primarily from Article 13 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereafter CRC), which defines “freedom of expression” as the “freedom 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.”
The CRC provides only two exceptions to this freedom: the expression must respect the rights and reputation of others, and it must not endanger national security, public security, or public health. Apart from that, at least as far as the CRC is concerned, the right has no other restrictions. If this document is signed and ratified by the United States, it will create a problem for local—and national—policymakers, and a nightmare for local law enforcement.
CRC supporters and enthusiasts have attempted to paint the CRC as a tool which has brought children out of darkness and into the light. The truth is that the free expression clause of the CRC alone has caused irreparable damage physically and academically in member-states who purport its doctrines to their youth. In Scotland, the school systems are having problems with children using “text message language” on academic assignments. According to Judith Gillespie of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, the text message phenomenon of our day has led to a “marked decline” in grammar proficiency. She concludes that “there has been a trend in recent years to emphasize spoken English rather than written language and so pupils think orally and write phonetically. The problem is that there is now a feeling in some schools that pupils’ freedom of expression should not be inhibited, so anything goes. But ‘texting’ must not be allowed to become acceptable written English – it will further erode the language.” Text messaging first appeared in the United Kingdom in 1994; within 15 years, it has become a serious problem for the education system.
Not all accusations against the spread of “free expression,” however, are so mild. The free expression of the child has also been used in Scotland by atheistic organizations to target children who were raised in religious homes, inciting them to reject their parents’ faith not because of lack of merit, but merely because it is an act of free expression. The focus of these groups is not to encourage a meaningful exchange in the marketplace of ideas; it is designed only to entice youths to revolt against their parents’ beliefs for the sake of revolution, not to benefit the child. Campaigns will often include posters which “display some of the labels routinely applied to children that imply beliefs such as Protestant and Sikh mixed with labels that people would never apply to young children such as Marxist, Anarchist, or Libertarian” – this is not the sign of a campaign devoted to helping children discover truth: it only incites to destruction.
Sweden created a law against sexual solicitation in 1999. The law did not stipulate that an individual could not engage in prostitution; it is illegal to buy, but not to sell. The difficulty with this policy, however, is that it allows young people—even children as young as thirteen or fourteen—to sexually solicit themselves online by placing personal, suggestive pictures on the internet without penalty. This has led several groups, including ECPAT International, to release help guides to assist parents in protecting their children from harming themselves.
In the Netherlands, the situation is much worse: children actively engage in sexuality, substance abuse, and alcohol as a means of expressing themselves and “being cool.” Kathryn Westcott, a reporter with the BBC News Network, interviewed Laura Vos, a 16-year-old girl in the Netherlands on the views of Dutch children on alcohol use, sex, and drugs. Her response was shocking: “In this country, it's very free, you can do anything you want. . . . You can smoke at 16, you can buy pot in the store next to the school. You can do what you like and because it's not illegal, it's not that interesting for us to provoke our parents with it.” This insight highlights the difference between their society and America today: American parents are concerned about whether their children smoke, drink, dope, or are sexually active.
According to a study conducted by the World Population Foundation in 2006, almost 30% of boys and girls fifteen years of age in the Netherlands are sexually active, and of those 30%, 92% of boys and 97% of girls have used some form of contraception. Illicit drugs are being used by young people just beyond school grounds. Drinking and smoking are common, and no one is warning them of the threat to their future and present health from these habits. Why is this happening? Because “it’s not that interesting for us to provoke our parents with it.” That is the mindset, and that is the heart of the problem: parents are not involved.
In the Netherlands “free expression” has also included child and adult pornography, both voluntary and commercial. Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen, writing in the Institute for Psychological Therapies (IPT) Journal, note that child pornography has been slowly legalized and legitimized in Dutch society. In the Dutch Supreme Court case Chick-arrest, Hoge Raad (1971), the Court determined that child pornography was only considered “obscene” and “offensive” under Article 240 if “an important majority of the population” agreed (Chick-arrest, Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) 17 November 1970, NJ 1971, 373). Schuijer and Rossen emphasize that “the result was that judges could no longer rely on their intuition to determine if an image was offensive. Furthermore, the opinions of the ‘large majority’ were rapidly becoming more permissive. The effect of this decision was effective elimination of the prohibition on pornography.” By 1984, it was completely legal to distribute child pornography openly, and by that time youths on stage and in movies were able to openly shed their clothes without penalty. That was “free expression.”
Actions such as these have not been prevented by the CRC’s Freedom of Expression Clause. While organizations have petitioned that the CRC be used to provide child safety on the internet, no attempts have been made to combat the use of “free expression” as a reason for placing explicit photos on the internet. I contend that nothing has been done because this is the logical extension of the reasoning present in the CRC’s free expression clause. When CRC activists promote “free expression” they mean precisely that: complete, unhindered access to any and all information available, and the ability to express oneself in any medium without sanctions.
The personal and societal impacts of this philosophy are legion: complete freedom for children in their formative years leads them to experiment with dangerous substances, including tobacco, illicit drugs, and alcohol, during years of critical brain and body development. The impacts of these substances present a hazard to the quality of life which they will enjoy in the future. Because we care about their lives, we limit their freedom of expression.
Anti-smoking and anti-drug campaigns don’t turn to international agreements for effective enforcement and prevention; they call for parental involvement. The desire to protect children is strongest not among government bureaucrats or foreigners working for intergovernmental organizations, but among parents who have loved, nurtured, and invested in their children. The Parental Rights Amendment protects the rights of good parents to be actively involved in their children’s lives in order to protect their children. With these rights coming under fire in recent court decisions, it is absolutely critical that we protect them from erosion and dismissal.
Feminists for Free Expression (hereafter FFE) note that government regulation, internet filtering software, and other impersonal forces cannot adequately protect children. To answer the following question on their website, “If it is technically so difficult to regulate the Internet, how can we protect our children from objectionable material?” FFE beautifully responds, “The only sure way of doing it is through parental guidance, helped by rapidly proliferating new technology.” FFE is not opposed to using helpful tools, and neither am I; we contend, however, that the critical element to success in any endeavor is parental involvement. FFE sums it up well: “FFE not only supports, but encourages parents to guide the reading, viewing, and listening of their children, and to discuss with their children the many ideas they encounter. . . . FFE believes most Americans would prefer to do this themselves rather than let a government committee decide what their children read, watch, and think.” For FFE, refusing to guide the upbringing of your child is the root cause of child neglect, since “parents who neglect this aspect of their kids' lives may neglect them in other ways. It is this neglect that needs addressing.”
It is not that we do not love children enough to grant them liberty; we love them enough to use our wisdom and experience to chart a better, safer path for them. Parental involvement is the most effective tool for influencing children’s lives, because they have a vested interest in success which companies, organizations, governments, and international bodies lack: this is their child.
Cartoon courtesy of http://ifea.net/news.html
The CRC provides only two exceptions to this freedom: the expression must respect the rights and reputation of others, and it must not endanger national security, public security, or public health. Apart from that, at least as far as the CRC is concerned, the right has no other restrictions. If this document is signed and ratified by the United States, it will create a problem for local—and national—policymakers, and a nightmare for local law enforcement.
CRC supporters and enthusiasts have attempted to paint the CRC as a tool which has brought children out of darkness and into the light. The truth is that the free expression clause of the CRC alone has caused irreparable damage physically and academically in member-states who purport its doctrines to their youth. In Scotland, the school systems are having problems with children using “text message language” on academic assignments. According to Judith Gillespie of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, the text message phenomenon of our day has led to a “marked decline” in grammar proficiency. She concludes that “there has been a trend in recent years to emphasize spoken English rather than written language and so pupils think orally and write phonetically. The problem is that there is now a feeling in some schools that pupils’ freedom of expression should not be inhibited, so anything goes. But ‘texting’ must not be allowed to become acceptable written English – it will further erode the language.” Text messaging first appeared in the United Kingdom in 1994; within 15 years, it has become a serious problem for the education system.
Not all accusations against the spread of “free expression,” however, are so mild. The free expression of the child has also been used in Scotland by atheistic organizations to target children who were raised in religious homes, inciting them to reject their parents’ faith not because of lack of merit, but merely because it is an act of free expression. The focus of these groups is not to encourage a meaningful exchange in the marketplace of ideas; it is designed only to entice youths to revolt against their parents’ beliefs for the sake of revolution, not to benefit the child. Campaigns will often include posters which “display some of the labels routinely applied to children that imply beliefs such as Protestant and Sikh mixed with labels that people would never apply to young children such as Marxist, Anarchist, or Libertarian” – this is not the sign of a campaign devoted to helping children discover truth: it only incites to destruction.
Sweden created a law against sexual solicitation in 1999. The law did not stipulate that an individual could not engage in prostitution; it is illegal to buy, but not to sell. The difficulty with this policy, however, is that it allows young people—even children as young as thirteen or fourteen—to sexually solicit themselves online by placing personal, suggestive pictures on the internet without penalty. This has led several groups, including ECPAT International, to release help guides to assist parents in protecting their children from harming themselves.
In the Netherlands, the situation is much worse: children actively engage in sexuality, substance abuse, and alcohol as a means of expressing themselves and “being cool.” Kathryn Westcott, a reporter with the BBC News Network, interviewed Laura Vos, a 16-year-old girl in the Netherlands on the views of Dutch children on alcohol use, sex, and drugs. Her response was shocking: “In this country, it's very free, you can do anything you want. . . . You can smoke at 16, you can buy pot in the store next to the school. You can do what you like and because it's not illegal, it's not that interesting for us to provoke our parents with it.” This insight highlights the difference between their society and America today: American parents are concerned about whether their children smoke, drink, dope, or are sexually active.
According to a study conducted by the World Population Foundation in 2006, almost 30% of boys and girls fifteen years of age in the Netherlands are sexually active, and of those 30%, 92% of boys and 97% of girls have used some form of contraception. Illicit drugs are being used by young people just beyond school grounds. Drinking and smoking are common, and no one is warning them of the threat to their future and present health from these habits. Why is this happening? Because “it’s not that interesting for us to provoke our parents with it.” That is the mindset, and that is the heart of the problem: parents are not involved.
In the Netherlands “free expression” has also included child and adult pornography, both voluntary and commercial. Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen, writing in the Institute for Psychological Therapies (IPT) Journal, note that child pornography has been slowly legalized and legitimized in Dutch society. In the Dutch Supreme Court case Chick-arrest, Hoge Raad (1971), the Court determined that child pornography was only considered “obscene” and “offensive” under Article 240 if “an important majority of the population” agreed (Chick-arrest, Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) 17 November 1970, NJ 1971, 373). Schuijer and Rossen emphasize that “the result was that judges could no longer rely on their intuition to determine if an image was offensive. Furthermore, the opinions of the ‘large majority’ were rapidly becoming more permissive. The effect of this decision was effective elimination of the prohibition on pornography.” By 1984, it was completely legal to distribute child pornography openly, and by that time youths on stage and in movies were able to openly shed their clothes without penalty. That was “free expression.”
Actions such as these have not been prevented by the CRC’s Freedom of Expression Clause. While organizations have petitioned that the CRC be used to provide child safety on the internet, no attempts have been made to combat the use of “free expression” as a reason for placing explicit photos on the internet. I contend that nothing has been done because this is the logical extension of the reasoning present in the CRC’s free expression clause. When CRC activists promote “free expression” they mean precisely that: complete, unhindered access to any and all information available, and the ability to express oneself in any medium without sanctions.
The personal and societal impacts of this philosophy are legion: complete freedom for children in their formative years leads them to experiment with dangerous substances, including tobacco, illicit drugs, and alcohol, during years of critical brain and body development. The impacts of these substances present a hazard to the quality of life which they will enjoy in the future. Because we care about their lives, we limit their freedom of expression.
Anti-smoking and anti-drug campaigns don’t turn to international agreements for effective enforcement and prevention; they call for parental involvement. The desire to protect children is strongest not among government bureaucrats or foreigners working for intergovernmental organizations, but among parents who have loved, nurtured, and invested in their children. The Parental Rights Amendment protects the rights of good parents to be actively involved in their children’s lives in order to protect their children. With these rights coming under fire in recent court decisions, it is absolutely critical that we protect them from erosion and dismissal.
Feminists for Free Expression (hereafter FFE) note that government regulation, internet filtering software, and other impersonal forces cannot adequately protect children. To answer the following question on their website, “If it is technically so difficult to regulate the Internet, how can we protect our children from objectionable material?” FFE beautifully responds, “The only sure way of doing it is through parental guidance, helped by rapidly proliferating new technology.” FFE is not opposed to using helpful tools, and neither am I; we contend, however, that the critical element to success in any endeavor is parental involvement. FFE sums it up well: “FFE not only supports, but encourages parents to guide the reading, viewing, and listening of their children, and to discuss with their children the many ideas they encounter. . . . FFE believes most Americans would prefer to do this themselves rather than let a government committee decide what their children read, watch, and think.” For FFE, refusing to guide the upbringing of your child is the root cause of child neglect, since “parents who neglect this aspect of their kids' lives may neglect them in other ways. It is this neglect that needs addressing.”
It is not that we do not love children enough to grant them liberty; we love them enough to use our wisdom and experience to chart a better, safer path for them. Parental involvement is the most effective tool for influencing children’s lives, because they have a vested interest in success which companies, organizations, governments, and international bodies lack: this is their child.
Cartoon courtesy of http://ifea.net/news.html
The Centaur Scrolls: The CRC's Inability to Reduce Child Trafficking
According to 2008 estimates by the US State Department, there are over 1.2 million new children trafficked each year, with an additional 1 million children trafficked for the purpose of sexual slavery. Numerous attempts have been made to stem the rise of kidnapping, sexual abuse, child soldiery, and slavery. The United Nations attempted to protect children by adopting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereafter CRC). While the CRC has its strong points, it has only proven effective at stripping member states of national sovereignty, while proving to be inadequate and inept in solving the problems it set out to address.
CRC-member states are universally seeing a rise in the number of children involved in organized crime and various forms of slavery. In South Africa, “children are recruited to run errands, spy on potential and actual ‘clients,’ and gain access to areas and quarters which are difficult for or closed to adults.” In April 2009, the United Kingdom reported a 90 percent increase in child trafficking: 957 cases from April to December of 2008. The British authorities also note that “it is likely that only a fraction of the victims are actually caught”—the numbers are far higher than what was reported.
The Italian and Sicilian Mafia have aggressively pursued child operatives for a number of missions, ranging from theft and subterfuge to assassination and pornography. Italy signed the CRC on January 26, 1990; it was one of the first signatory states. Eight years later, 8,000 Albanian girls were trafficked through Italy as prostitutes, with the number of new prostitutes from Albania alone reaching almost 1,000 by the year 2000. Albanian girls are also among the youngest girls trafficked internationally, with over 80 percent of them under the age of eighteen. By 2009, the number of new women being trafficked from Nigeria to Italy alone was 1,782. It is not surprising that Italy has been described as “a trafficking stronghold.”
In 2000 there were also between 10,000 and 12,000 children actively involved in organized crime in Italy, with the number of cases of juvenile crime reaching almost 70,000 cases. Of these crimes, there were 2,600 cases of violent robbery, almost 20,000 cases of automobile theft, over 500 cases of serious assault, and almost 1,700 cases involving the use of illicit drugs. And remember, these are only the cases which were caught in 2000; the real number is much higher.
The Sicilian Mafia has been using Roma Gypsy children under the age of 14 as hired blades and weapons manufacturers for over a decade, because they “are too young to be tried as criminals.” The Chief of Police in Caltanissetta, Sicily, noted that children are usually used “in support roles, acting as lookouts and collecting weapons,” but also noted that “the age at which youths start to kill has reduced significantly.” Children 11 years and younger are routinely trained by the Sicilian Mafia to kill—and kill without remorse.
Why is child crime rising? Chris Hume, Director of Practice and Performance with the Youth Justice Board in the United Kingdom, notes that it is “obvious” that these crimes would not occur if parents and the home environment were stronger. International agreements which lack enforcement are not Mr. Hume’s solution—he bemoans the lack of parental involvement. The answer to rising child crime is not the high rhetoric without any enforcement, found in the CRC. Men and women across the globe recognize the critical role of the family unit in protecting children and providing for their future.
In Benin, we find similar stories. Children who were forced to live with extended relatives instead of their parents because of financial reasons point to the severing of familial bonds as the reason for easy child trafficking and various forms of domestic abuse. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, young girls are routinely used as sex slaves at night and combatants in tribal wars during the day. Why? Because the family is absent: they have no one to protect them or instruct them on how to live a better life.
David Nowell, President of Hope Unlimited for Children, has worked for decades in Brazil to reconstruct the family. In his article, “U.S. Should Take a Pass on UN Child Rights Act,” Mr. Nowell notes that his organization “exists to some degree because of the damage caused by the UNCRC since it was ratified [by Brazil] in the early 1990s.” He notes how millions of children have found themselves on the streets in Brazil because of the dissolution of the family, leading children to engage in illicit and harmful activities. According to Nowell, “Children now have the legal right to become truants, join gangs and abuse alcohol. In no small measure due to the trauma visited upon Brazil by this convention, the country's streets are now home to millions of children. Childhood drug dealing and prostitution are rampant.” He further discusses how the child prison system has become overcrowded due to the CRC—which is supposed to help children. Instead of assisting them, the CRC requires organizations like Hope Unlimited to step in and provide necessary care and guidance for children.
The universal nature of the problem requires us to be ready for problems here at home. The best answer is to affirm and defend the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, encouraging their involvement in their child’s social and moral development. The Parental Rights Amendment (HJR 42, SJR 16), will both protect the rights of parents while maintaining the rights of law enforcement to intervene in the case of child abuse and child neglect. Such action provides effective enforcement through parents and preservation of our most critical traditions.
In 1907, James Oliphant, wrote an article entitled, “Parental Rights and Public Education,” in the International Journal of Ethics. He wrote, as far back as 1907, that the desire to protect parental rights is based on “a belief, based upon observation and experience, that social stability is primarily founded on family life, and that every weakening of the bond between parents and their children must have its influence on wider relations” (James Oliphant, “Parental Rights and Public Education,” International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 205-217 (January 1907), 208). This article preceded all Supreme Court decisions enumerating parental rights, and all discussion of its importance in the legal realm: we have known the power and influence of parental involvement on social stability for over a century—and arguably across the centuries from time out of mind. Parental rights need to be adequately protected for the sake of the children. Visit www.parentalrights.org today and get involved in truly protecting children, by empowering their parents.
CRC-member states are universally seeing a rise in the number of children involved in organized crime and various forms of slavery. In South Africa, “children are recruited to run errands, spy on potential and actual ‘clients,’ and gain access to areas and quarters which are difficult for or closed to adults.” In April 2009, the United Kingdom reported a 90 percent increase in child trafficking: 957 cases from April to December of 2008. The British authorities also note that “it is likely that only a fraction of the victims are actually caught”—the numbers are far higher than what was reported.
The Italian and Sicilian Mafia have aggressively pursued child operatives for a number of missions, ranging from theft and subterfuge to assassination and pornography. Italy signed the CRC on January 26, 1990; it was one of the first signatory states. Eight years later, 8,000 Albanian girls were trafficked through Italy as prostitutes, with the number of new prostitutes from Albania alone reaching almost 1,000 by the year 2000. Albanian girls are also among the youngest girls trafficked internationally, with over 80 percent of them under the age of eighteen. By 2009, the number of new women being trafficked from Nigeria to Italy alone was 1,782. It is not surprising that Italy has been described as “a trafficking stronghold.”
In 2000 there were also between 10,000 and 12,000 children actively involved in organized crime in Italy, with the number of cases of juvenile crime reaching almost 70,000 cases. Of these crimes, there were 2,600 cases of violent robbery, almost 20,000 cases of automobile theft, over 500 cases of serious assault, and almost 1,700 cases involving the use of illicit drugs. And remember, these are only the cases which were caught in 2000; the real number is much higher.
The Sicilian Mafia has been using Roma Gypsy children under the age of 14 as hired blades and weapons manufacturers for over a decade, because they “are too young to be tried as criminals.” The Chief of Police in Caltanissetta, Sicily, noted that children are usually used “in support roles, acting as lookouts and collecting weapons,” but also noted that “the age at which youths start to kill has reduced significantly.” Children 11 years and younger are routinely trained by the Sicilian Mafia to kill—and kill without remorse.
Why is child crime rising? Chris Hume, Director of Practice and Performance with the Youth Justice Board in the United Kingdom, notes that it is “obvious” that these crimes would not occur if parents and the home environment were stronger. International agreements which lack enforcement are not Mr. Hume’s solution—he bemoans the lack of parental involvement. The answer to rising child crime is not the high rhetoric without any enforcement, found in the CRC. Men and women across the globe recognize the critical role of the family unit in protecting children and providing for their future.
In Benin, we find similar stories. Children who were forced to live with extended relatives instead of their parents because of financial reasons point to the severing of familial bonds as the reason for easy child trafficking and various forms of domestic abuse. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, young girls are routinely used as sex slaves at night and combatants in tribal wars during the day. Why? Because the family is absent: they have no one to protect them or instruct them on how to live a better life.
David Nowell, President of Hope Unlimited for Children, has worked for decades in Brazil to reconstruct the family. In his article, “U.S. Should Take a Pass on UN Child Rights Act,” Mr. Nowell notes that his organization “exists to some degree because of the damage caused by the UNCRC since it was ratified [by Brazil] in the early 1990s.” He notes how millions of children have found themselves on the streets in Brazil because of the dissolution of the family, leading children to engage in illicit and harmful activities. According to Nowell, “Children now have the legal right to become truants, join gangs and abuse alcohol. In no small measure due to the trauma visited upon Brazil by this convention, the country's streets are now home to millions of children. Childhood drug dealing and prostitution are rampant.” He further discusses how the child prison system has become overcrowded due to the CRC—which is supposed to help children. Instead of assisting them, the CRC requires organizations like Hope Unlimited to step in and provide necessary care and guidance for children.
The universal nature of the problem requires us to be ready for problems here at home. The best answer is to affirm and defend the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, encouraging their involvement in their child’s social and moral development. The Parental Rights Amendment (HJR 42, SJR 16), will both protect the rights of parents while maintaining the rights of law enforcement to intervene in the case of child abuse and child neglect. Such action provides effective enforcement through parents and preservation of our most critical traditions.
In 1907, James Oliphant, wrote an article entitled, “Parental Rights and Public Education,” in the International Journal of Ethics. He wrote, as far back as 1907, that the desire to protect parental rights is based on “a belief, based upon observation and experience, that social stability is primarily founded on family life, and that every weakening of the bond between parents and their children must have its influence on wider relations” (James Oliphant, “Parental Rights and Public Education,” International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 205-217 (January 1907), 208). This article preceded all Supreme Court decisions enumerating parental rights, and all discussion of its importance in the legal realm: we have known the power and influence of parental involvement on social stability for over a century—and arguably across the centuries from time out of mind. Parental rights need to be adequately protected for the sake of the children. Visit www.parentalrights.org today and get involved in truly protecting children, by empowering their parents.
The Centaur Scrolls: Introduction
Reader,
The Centaur Papers are a number of articles which I have written to address the many concerns of the CRC. As they are finished, they will be posted here.
I often say, "Seek the truth, find it, and defend it to the death" -- that is no joke, and it is not just a nice saying. Over the past year or so since I started this blog, I have been seeking the truth, and now that I have sufficient support to substantiate a number of larger claims, I have compiled them into a number of articles which will prove the worth and beauty of the Parental Rights Amendment as a sufficient means of protecting the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.
Rock on, my friends!
Seek the truth, find it, and defend it to the death,
Centaur
"The time is right." -- Glenstorm
The Centaur Papers are a number of articles which I have written to address the many concerns of the CRC. As they are finished, they will be posted here.
I often say, "Seek the truth, find it, and defend it to the death" -- that is no joke, and it is not just a nice saying. Over the past year or so since I started this blog, I have been seeking the truth, and now that I have sufficient support to substantiate a number of larger claims, I have compiled them into a number of articles which will prove the worth and beauty of the Parental Rights Amendment as a sufficient means of protecting the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.
Rock on, my friends!
Seek the truth, find it, and defend it to the death,
Centaur
"The time is right." -- Glenstorm
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
How the CRC Will Destroy Family Sanctity
Friends,
You need to read this article: it is one of the best articles I have read on the threats of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in a long time. Mr. Aaron Young, in his article entitled, "Exclusive: How the Convention on the Rights of the Child Will Destroy Family Sanctity," aptly assesses the situation facing American families today. His research is solid, and his argument is persuasive.
Seek the truth,
Find it, and defend it to the death,
Centaur
"I watch the stars, for it is mine to watch, as it is your's to remember, Badger." -- Glenstorm
You need to read this article: it is one of the best articles I have read on the threats of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in a long time. Mr. Aaron Young, in his article entitled, "Exclusive: How the Convention on the Rights of the Child Will Destroy Family Sanctity," aptly assesses the situation facing American families today. His research is solid, and his argument is persuasive.
Seek the truth,
Find it, and defend it to the death,
Centaur
"I watch the stars, for it is mine to watch, as it is your's to remember, Badger." -- Glenstorm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)