By Mark for the TIB Network:
A commenter recently brought up the US no longer being part of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Gee, what a travesty, eh? I mean, this has such a great catchy title. We must be crazy, we must want children to die, right? Wrong again. If you look at some of the basic assumptions of the documents and the UN, you will see why we did not go along with it, and even the Clinton Administration, who said they would sign it with reservations, had some issues with the document.
Like all other UN "human rights" instruments, the "children's rights" Convention is predicated on the notion that rights are a gift of government, rather than a possession vouchsafed to individuals by God. By making government the steward of the rights of children, the Convention mandates limitless disruption of the traditional family.
For instance, Article 24, Section 3 of the document instructs governments to "take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children." Note well that a practice need not be proved to be injurious, but rather only "prejudicial" to the health of children. In here one can infer, given the UN's past predereliction for interference in sovereignty, that experts would determine what constitutes injury to a child. This could be religious instruction (those darn Christians!), discipline (no spanking, it might make little Johnny not do the bad things anymore), or alternate forms of education that do not hail the UN as some great and mighty body.
Furthermore, Article 9 of the Convention states that governments "shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine ... that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child." Ahh, people in Stockholm and in Paris would know the best interests of a child in Jackson Hole, WY. Maybe we could send in Hans Blix, or better yet, that pillar of integrity, Kojo Annan.
These seizures would be subject to international judicial review, but tell me, would the international courts side against their biggest booster, the UN? This judicial review offers but slender reassurance to parents that their rights will be respected. Article 9 also states that a child separated from his parents will be allowed to remain in contact with his parents "except if it is contrary to the child's best interests." Of course, the world body would be very upset if the interests of the child would show they should still be with parents, so contact would not be allowed. In fact, this type of abuse of power already occurs in this nation through overzealous liberals in the child welfare departments.
The family of San Diego resident Jim Wade was victimized by "competent authorities subject to judicial review," who seized eight-year-old Alicia Wade and held her against her will for nearly two years. After Alicia was raped, child "protection" workers took her into custody and used every means at their disposal to brainwash the child into accusing her father. Despite the fact that a known pedophile was arrested near the Wade neighborhood shortly after Alicia was raped, the "competent authorities" who had seized the child, acting out of an ideological hatred for the family, ignored the child's pleas and attempted to place her for adoption. So concerned were these "competent authorities" regarding Alicia's sexual traumatization that they subjected her to pornographic sexual materials and attempted to teach her to masturbate -- in short, they sexually molested her.
A San Diego grand jury investigation provoked by the Wade case documented that similar abuses had been committed by child "protection" agencies in at least 300 other cases. Although it is at best difficult for families who have been thus abused to receive satisfaction, under the UN "children's rights" Convention they would have no hope for redress -- and no protection from additional impositions. So, you see, what has been going on in African nations by UN peacekeepers (namely the rape and abuse of children and women) would have little chance of redress, because all the UN workers would have to do would be claim abuse by parents, and bingo! according to the resolution, US sovereignty is superceded by the interests of the UN. But wait, there is more!
North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which seeks to legalize adult-child sexual relations, sees the Convention as a way to pry children from the safety of the home. Canadian journalist Celeste McGovern notes that NAMBLA agitated on behalf of Canada's ratification of the Convention, because the group believes that "the convention could be used to support its belief that children as young as six have the right to choose to have sex."
Defenders of the Convention may protest that the document condemns child pornography, child prostitution, and other varieties of sexual abuse and exploitation. However, on July 30, 1993, the UN's Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) effectively endorsed the pervert lobby by granting "consultative status" to the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), a coalition which included NAMBLA and a Dutch pedophile organization. The decision to admit ILGA was approved by representatives of 22 governments, including the Clinton Administration. This action is of immediate relevance to the UN's family policies, as ECOSOC is the entity which conducted the UN International Year of the Family (IYF) in 1994.
Is it just a coincidence that NAMBLA, ILGA, and other partisans of sexual perversion are among the most energetic supporters of the UN's "family" policies? Or do those who seek to elevate degeneracy and those who wish to create a global megastate recognize that their most formidable obstacle is the traditional family?
