Child-rights document: remarks misleading
>
>
> ITEM
>
>    PUBLICATION        The Chronicle-Herald
>    DATE               Friday November 3, 2000
>    PAGE               C2
>    BYLINE             Richard Gruchy
>
>    HEADLINE: Child-rights document: remarks misleading
>
>    IN THE 11 years since the UN Convention on the Rights of the
>    Child (CRC) was ratified by Canada and the rest of the world, except
>    the United States and Somalia, there has been an enormous amount of
>    misinformation and half-truths published about this document. Bill
>    Cox's Oct. 18 column, "UN has no right to interfere in country's
>    family life," is yet another example of the ongoing mission of some
>    to spread misleading and inflammatory information about this simple
>    document.
>
>    Mr. Cox's concern that the CRC will undermine "traditional and
>    necessary parental authority" is unfounded. The CRC clearly states
>    in Article 5: "State parties shall respect the responsibilities,
>    rights and duties of parents to provide, in a manner consistent with
>    the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and
>    guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in
>    the present convention."
>
>    The tone of Article 5 is sustained throughout the CRC and the
>    convention clearly places the authority to provide direction to
>    children, in all areas of their lives, in the hands of their parents.
>    Therefore, Mr. Cox's claim that a parent cannot limit what their
>    children watch on TV is incorrect. The CRC merely says that the
>    state cannot limit a child's freedom to seek, receive and impart
>    information and ideas, so long as this information respects the
>    rights and reputations of others and does not compromise national
>    security, public order, public health or morals.
>
>    Mr. Cox goes on to claim that children's rights to be protected from
>    harm in effect repeals Section 43 of the Criminal Code. This claim
>    is also groundless. Article 19 of the CRC says: "State parties shall
>    take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and
>    educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical
>    or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment,
>    maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the
>    care of parent(s)." Section 43 allows a parent to use force by way
>    of correction towards a child, so long as "force does not exceed
>    what is reasonable under the circumstances." Unless Section 43 is
>    being used as a defence for physically, mentally or sexually abusing,
>    or neglecting a child, it is not in violation of the CRC.
>    Furthermore, Mr. Cox has neglected to mention that Section 43 has
>    already stood up to a Charter challenge.
>
>    Mr. Cox asserts: "'Legal autonomy for children' is ludicrous.
>    Children of six or seven do not have the intellectual and emotional
>    understanding needed for the individual exercise of such rights." He
>    is probably correct in this assertion; however, the CRC makes it
>    clear that the parents have the primary duty to assure that a
>    child's rights are not violated. It is interesting to note, however,
>    that the claim that children lack the necessary intellectual or
>    emotional understanding to have rights is similar to arguments made
>    in the past against rights for women, blacks, and First Nation
>    Canadians.
>
>    The CRC is not "a sneaky way to erode parental rights" or a tool "
>    shamefully used by social activists to further their goal of radical
>    societal and political reform." The CRC represents a recognition
>    that children are human beings who are entitled to basic human
>    rights. It also recognizes that "childhood is entitled to special
>    care and assistance."
>
>    If it is radical societal and political reform to believe that
>    children should be protected from the ravages of war, should be safe
>    from physical and sexual abuse or exploitation, that they should
>    receive adequate health care and education, or that the state should
>    not be allowed to tell a child how to think or worship, then I am
>    proud to call myself a radical.
>
>    Richard Gruchy, MSW, RSW, lives in Halifax.
>
>
>    SEARCH TERMS       CARE; HEALTH; THE;
>
> *** END OF STORY***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (Embedded image moved to file: pic10015.pcx)
>
>                UN has no right to interfere in country's family l
>
>
> ITEM
>
>    PUBLICATION        The Chronicle-Herald
>    DATE               Wednesday October 18, 2000
>    PAGE               C2
>    BYLINE             Bill Cox
>
>    HEADLINE: UN has no right to interfere in country's family life
>
>    RIGHTS FOR individuals and groups don't drop out of thin air.
>    They result from the hard work of people who have earned them.
>    Continued enjoyment requires acceptance of the responsibilities that
>    are the flip side of every right. Children's rights should only be
>    recognized if doing so would not unduly limit the exercise of
>    parental rights and hinder the discharge of parental duties.
>
>    Last year, to mark the 10th anniversary of the United Nations
>    Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a vote by
>    schoolchildren was held on children's rights. It was sold as an
>    educational exercise, but rip away the transparent camouflage and it
>    is revealed as a sneaky way to erode parental rights and use non-
>    democratic international agreements to initiate radical social
>    changes.
>
>    The vote received a $6-million grant from Elections Canada. That
>    would have done more good if spent on feeding starving children in
>    Africa.
>
>    Children from age six to 18 were to vote for their "most important
>    right" from a long list, including health care and protection from
>    harm. The results were to be forwarded to the Liberal government,
>    presumably in the hope they would be included in its National
>    Children's Agenda.
>
>    Many of the listed rights seem legitimate, but become dubious
>    because their vague terms permit a wide discretionary application.
>    They are cleverly worded so that most children, and many parents,
>    don't understand the width of their application in undermining
>    traditional and necessary parental authority.
>
>    Under the CRC, the right to share opinions is much wider than a
>    right to converse. It would include a right to seek and receive
>    information and ideas on any topic and through any medium without
>    parental approval. Throw wide the TV doors; all that's behind them
>    should be accessible to all, regardless of age. The right to health
>    care includes the right to family-planning education and services (
>    abortion and birth control) without parental consent or knowledge.
>    Some of the rights may seem appropriate for a 17-year-old girl, but
>    they are destructive when applied to an eight-year-old.
>
>    The right to protection from harm is broad enough to apply to any
>    manner of corrective discipline, in effect repealing Section 43 of
>    the Criminal Code. It is unwarranted interference by a non-elected
>    foreign body in purely internal matters. Foreigners should not be
>    able to tell Canadian parents how they should bring up their
>    children.
>
>    The CRC right to education includes mandatory comprehensive sex
>    education at all levels and covers "sexual pleasure, confidence and
>    freedom of sexual expression and orientation." It is wrong to have
>    asked a six-year-old to cast a vote on such matters. The vote cannot
>    be justified as an exposure of youngsters to a democratic election
>    process. The children have been shamefully used by social activists
>    to further their goal of radical societal and political reform.
>
>    The definitions of rights are deliberately vague. It is clear that
>    parental rights are subjected to those of their children. They grant
>    autonomy on many matters to children, while undermining traditional
>    parental rights and duties to guide, influence and correct their
>    children. "Legal autonomy for children" is ludicrous. Children of
>    six or seven do not have the intellectual and emotional
>    understanding needed for the individual exercise of such rights.
>
>    The injection of "legal rights" into the parent/child relationship
>    erects an invisible fence around each child which his/her parents
>    will not be permitted to penetrate. Pushing parents out of important
>    areas of their children's lives risks cultivating parents who become
>    indifferent to their children's lives. A lack of participation
>    always breeds indifference.
>
>    Our traditional laws, solidly rooted in the parent/child
>    relationships, have served us well, although we could have done
>    better. We cannot improve by following the radically permissive
>    reforms advocated by self-styled experts in the unscientific fields
>    of so-called social sciences. Many of our troubles arise from paying
>    attention to the seductive propositions of the entitlement society,
>    where attention is focused on self-indulgence rather than on the
>    service which is required of a loving and giving parent.
>
>    Too many of our unappreciative and rebellious youth have gone too
>    far down the road pursuing a discipline-proof society where all that
>    matters is momentary satisfaction.
>
>    In its arrogance of ordering others to do what it is both unable and
>    unwilling to do itself, the United Nations has decreed that all
>    countries that have signed the CRC - unfortunately, Canada has; and
>    fortunately, the United States has not - have a binding obligation
>    to put its foolishness into their laws without democratic debate.
>    That smacks of Axworthyism. The UN has more to do now than it can do
>    properly. It should not squander its limited resources on
>    intervention in family life and the rights of parents to educate and
>    develop their children within the sacred confines of the family.
>
>    Our resources should be used to strengthen the parent/child
>    relationships, encouraging all parents to accept and discharge their
>    parental duty to nurture and to educate their children to take their
>    contributing place in a society that will make them feel truly at
>    home and welcome.
>
>    Bill Cox, QC, lives in Halifax. He can be contacted at 902-422-4646.
>
>
>    SEARCH TERMS       CARE; HEALTH; THE;
>
> *** END OF STORY***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>