In case you need a reminder...

... Of why I am not a fan of the UN, here is yet another attempt to undermine the sovreignty of memeber-states.

I am by no means an isolationist, mainly because I recognise that much is expected of those to whom much is given. I do think that representative democracy should be encouraged-- even if we disagree with the laws selected by new governments.

However, this kind of vague language is what chafes:

Article 13

1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include 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.

2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Article 14

1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 15
1. States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly.

2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 16
1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 17
States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health. To this end, States Parties shall:

(a) Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child and in accordance with the spirit of article 29;

(b) Encourage international co-operation in the production, exchange and dissemination of such information and material from a diversity of cultural, national and international sources;

(c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children's books;

(d) Encourage the mass media to have particular regard to the linguistic needs of the child who belongs to a minority group or who is indigenous;

(e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being, bearing in mind the provisions of articles 13 and 18.

I must say, it is very generous of them to concede that parents and guardians have cartain rights, within their abilities, of course!

According to the website, the US has signed this convention, but it hasn't been ratified by our legislature. As with many of these conventions, it sounds like such a great idea. However, upon closer examination, we see one by one, nations signing away their rights. Those who may object are villified, and globalization claims another.


Dana said…
I agree. The ambiguity of the language is the most difficult with this. Opposing it sounds like you are against children, and it is hard to pick out specific points to really object to, because they don't really say anything for the most part. Leaving it wide open for inconsistent interpretation and application.

We see how it is playing out in Brussels and what happened earlier in England...two nations that by and large should not be the target of this treaty. This should be for all those nations that signed, but filed lengthy objections about how Islam was their state religion and would remain as such, and other policies which stood in clear contrast to the stated goals of the convention.

Popular posts from this blog

7 Foods for 1 Entire Month?

Still Daddy's Girl?

To the zit at the lower right corner of my mouth...