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***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|