The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been making the news headlines recently. The convention or the CRC, as it is often referred to, is an international human rights treaty that sets forth a list of basic human liberties for children under the age of eighteen.
The CRC, as of 2008, has been ratified by 193 nations, except the United States and Somalia. Both Senator Barbara Boxer and President Obama have stated their support for the treaty and have vowed to revisit US ratification during this administration.
That has some right-wingers flapping in their coops. Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org is one such conservative who believes that the adoption of this treaty by the United States is somehow aiding and abetting the [almost imperceptible] erosion of our American liberties. He's also proposed an amendment to the constitution that would somehow "undeniably" secure the rights of the parents as having sole authority over what happens to their children.
Doesn't this pretty much exist as an implicit assumption anyway, without needing to elucidate it with a constitutional amendment? He regards the treaty (which seems pretty family friendly to me) and anti-parent judges (his words, not mine) as an imminent danger to parental rights in America.
Okay, forgive me, but what in the fudge are anti-parent judges? Is he claiming that the family services division of our legal system is against parents? Is it a lackadaisical approach to parenting they detest or just a general dislike of those who breed?
C'mon. I know there is corruption in the legal system but to claim that anti-parent judges are going to somehow influence or take away a good parent's rights on such a grand-scale that you actually need to propose a constitutional amendment sounds a bit overly suspicious to me.
Even I, a lover of good conspiracy theories, think Farris is taking the language of the treaty and making some pretty bold and widely-drawn assumptions. From what I can tell, the CRC provides nothing more than the basic human rights over one's mind and body that all humans deserve and spells it out for children specifically.
I'm not particularly for or against the signing of this treaty but the fact that Farris is using scare tactics on Fox News to make his "UN will take away your parental rights" argument makes all the fuss seem that much less credible to me.
Farris recently wrote a detailed critique of the Rights of the Child treaty, contending that it potentially could bar U.S. parents from spanking their children and empower young people to have abortions and choose a religion without parental consent.No more spanking, choose your own religion and have rights over your body by not allowing another person to force you to bear a child that you do not want?
Hmmm, my violin is not bowing, Mr. Farris.
I'm all for keeping Big Brother out of my home but this treaty has not shown me signs that it has the potentiality to infringe on my parental rights and neither has Michael Farris convinced me that he knows what he is talking about.
What do you think? Post your comments below!