The U.S. should sign this. Children are not property. They have basic rights.

This is a tricky slope and I would have to see the wording of it before saying we should or should not sign it.

Well, if Somalia is against it then probably there is a good reason.

Danni,
I have not seen the wording, but if this is in it, we should certainly NOT sign it.

But opponents in the U.S. argue that it could open the door to outside interference from government and U.N. officials in what they say are parents' rights to raise a child as they see fit.

FF for Danni's #3!

We signed the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishmment and look where that got us.
~The Riiiight

Sign it. It's just a treaty.

Ask any Indian what that paper is worth.

We've all gotten used to the idea, that whatever a law or treaty says, once you open the box, you can't put it back in.

Here's the issue; who should be raising children, the state or parents? Liberals dance around the issue, but when it boils down, they answer - "the state"..

Most of us disagree..

As for the UN.. let's get out of it.

"But opponents in the U.S. argue that it could open the door to outside interference from government and U.N. officials in what they say are parents' rights to raise a child as they see fit."

I admit, I haven't read it but it would be hard for me to believe that all other countries would sign it if that were true. Americans are not the only people who want to control how we raise our families and who are not willing to sacrifice our sovereignity. But...who knows...maybe none of the other countries read it before they signed it....

Nothing the UN does matters anyway. Is there anything in the language about strapping Semtex to your kids, and pointing them in the direction of the nearest Jewish coffee shop? What does it say should happen when the Islamist psychotics sign the thing, then pay benefits to parents whose kids blow themselves up?

signing it is not the problem:

the problem is when they send ya (us taxpayers) the invoice for the fine print

Here's a link to the convention:

Children. Bah.

I haven't read the treaty, I actually hadn't heard of it until seeing this link. Does anyone know what this treaty covers that current Child Protection laws in this country don't?

Article 2 #2 from Hope4Hope's link:

"2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members."

I'm not a lawyer, can someone break this down for me? protected against all forms of punishment on the basis of among other things activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents?

Those are the 3 things my kids end up getting punished for the most! LOL

So does this treaty mean the government is stepping in if I decide to punish my son for crappy behavior? I don't get the point of this treaty, at least not for here in America.

Those children have no right to be born, however. The benevolent state runs all!

Treaty's trump all laws this is not good as it sounds if they sign it the UN can come in your home and tell you what your children will do. What religion what schools and if you child complains about the punishment you give them you could in up in a court that you have no USA rights. The UN will be the judge and jury.

"I don't get the point of this treaty, at least not for here in America."

American values are winning around the world, among people of diverse nationality, religion, race, language, etc. and you don't get the point here in America????
Do you have any idea how stupid that is?

Article 2 #2 from Hope4Hope's link:

"2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members."

I'm not a lawyer, can someone break this down for me? protected against all forms of punishment on the basis of among other things activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents?

Easy enough to break down:

Don't like the crowd your kid is hanging around with (no matter what your child's age)... you can't do anything but talk to them about it.

Your child is doing drugs? You can't do anything but talk about it.

Your five year old calls you an asshole... you can't do anything but talk about it.

Your five year old doesn't want to go to church because it takes away from their video game time... you can't do anything but talk about it.

That means no:

Spankings
Time-outs
Grounding
Extra chores
etc.

In other words, your rights as a parent to raise your child is limited to complaining if they do something a child shouldn't, or starts going down the wrong path in life. If you don't like it... tough shit.

Of course there is no such limit on what the government can do. This simply leaves the door wide open for government indoctrination of the kids into whatever they would like with ZERO say so on the part of the parent.

Hope that clears it up for you.

The UN can't decide the definition or acts of terrorism--but put out this garbage?

The UN needs some serious tweaking.

And Susan Rice and Obama will be idiots if they sign this.

""Article 2 #2 from Hope4Hope's link:

"2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members."

I'm not a lawyer, can someone break this down for me? protected against all forms of punishment on the basis of among other things activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents?

"the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members."

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to understand what that means. I don't really understand what would be diagreeable about it.

It means that the parents have no say so in the raising of their children.

I find much to be disagreeable about it.

"The U.S. should sign this. Children are not property. They have basic rights." #1 | Posted by hope4hope

Children are not the governments or the UN's property either. They already have rights. The Obama administration and the UN should butt out. They have enough screwed up ideas on their plate that doesn't work.

I don't really understand what would be diagreeable about it.

And we all understand why you think that way.

Essentially it precludes discipline, and puts the parents under the jurisdiction of the state.

From what I see most parents are so permissive that it wouldn't matter.

But take manners for instance. I believe a child should reply Yes Ma'am when told by his mother to do something - like brush your teeth and go to bed - and I punish that child's obstinance with restrictions or a swat on the butt then I would be in violation of this law.

We've seen in modern history totalitarian states that remove parental rights so that the children can be indoctrinated, and there's cases I've read about where the child is duped into reporting on their parents. Call it socialism, communism, or just plain stupidity, any right thinking person would see this for what it is and reject it.

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to understand what that means. I don't really understand what would be diagreeable about it.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2009-06-23 11:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Obviously Not A Parent

******************

Children are not the governments or the UN's property either. They already have rights.

Children also don't have the maturity or experience to exercise good judgment. That is the parent's job, among other things. This would remove all ability of the parent to do this job with any effectiveness.

Gee whiz! No details needed here. Just the title proves this treaty is good. I mean, like, y'know, Paris, Lindsay and Brit would agree. Who needs the details?

Gee whiz! No details needed here. Just the title proves this treaty is good.

That is the point. They can put anything in there they like no matter how outrageous and fascist it is, and if you don't agree then you are "against children" and "think they are property".

Most christian zionists need help from the state. Something has to counter effect the religious bs they pump into their kids heads.

It is amazing the imagination some of you have. Do you really believe all that stuff? You guys could write the sequel to "Reefer Madness".

I believe paranoia is based on misinterprating what you are reading.

"2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members."

I believe this is stating the a child cannot be punished or experience discrimination because of their PARENT'S beliefs, opinions, actions, ect.

But hey, some of you only hear the voices in your and translate everything to match.

Sorry...voices in your "head"

I don't believe the punishment of a child by a parent is addressed in this statement at all.

For example. Vonn Brunn's, whatever his name is, offspring should not be discriminated against because of their father's extreme beliefs.

if everyone but the US and Somalia signed it, why are there still uneducated and abused children? i mean, this means Sudan signed it, right? was this before or after they "recruited" all those kids to fight? oh wait, that's still happening. and those pesky, children loving Chinese, they signed it right? was that before or after children were forced work in a fireworks factory that blew them up (37 children, 4 teens killed, 3/2001)? i could go on and on... but, we all have google.

Children should be protected. just don't count on whether or not a country signs a document to determine who's a good guy and who's bad. many countries sign these treaties and do NOTHING to abide by them.

oh and guys, you do realize that children in the U.S. are afforded the right to each and every one of these items? why do WE need to sign it? we institutionalize it -- we live it.

and it's a 20-year old treaty! do you think this changes anything except adding to the white houses' resume? this is just more pomp.

#20 | Posted by moomanfl

Exactly!

It is the parents' job to decide how to best raise a child; not the state's.

I am ecstatic that our government didn't sign on to this shitty piece of statist legislation.

I will raise my children as I damn well see fit. Fuck the state and more importantly, Fuck the left!!!

To moomanfl at #20, that's what I figured it meant, I just didn't want to jump to that conclusion without asking for a little confirmation.

This treaty sucks, and we shouldn't sign it. I choose how my kids are raised, not the UN. What the hell is President Obama thinking?

To #30 by MEMYSELFINI the line says: "the child is protected against ALL FORMS of discrimination or punishment"

You seeing it as nothing is your interpretation, some of us seeing it as something much more is our interpretation. I don't think you need to result to insults because that line is vague.

That the line is so open to interpretation says to me that it either should be rewritten to be more clear to what you are saying, or the people should be given a clear explanation as to what it means.

#20 | Posted by moomanfl

I'm not sure if you're referring to another clause in the treaty, but the one you cited in #20 doesn't say anything remotely resembling what you posted.

That clause says kids cannot be discriminated against because of the beliefs, actions, or status of the parents. It doesn't say anything about how parents can or cannot discipline their own kids.

To #30 by MEMYSELFINI the line says: "the child is protected against ALL FORMS of discrimination or punishment"

#37 | Posted by GreenDad

Greendad - it says the child is protected against ALL FORMS of discrimination or punishment because of the beliefs, actions, or status of their parents.

ie: they can't be discriminated against at school because their parents don't belong to the right political party, or religion, for example.

San,

But what if the beleif of the parents are that the child should be beaten as punishment? Then that would allow the state to step in as it is the parents beleif's which are discriminiating against the child.

You see where this could get fuzzy and used to tell parents how to raise their children?

But what if the beleif of the parents are that the child should be beaten as punishment? Then that would allow the state to step in as it is the parents beleif's which are discriminiating against the child.

You see where this could get fuzzy and used to tell parents how to raise their children?

#40 | Posted by TaoWarrior

That interpretation is not born out by the wording of the clause itself. It specifically says that others cannot discriminate against the child because of the beliefs of their parents.

Trying to spin that to mean the state can tell parents how to raise their children seems a very large, if not impossible, leap to me.

But what if the beleif of the parents are that the child should be beaten as punishment? Then that would allow the state to step in as it is the parents beleif's which are discriminiating against the child.

#40 | Posted by TaoWarrior

By the way... the state already has the power, and the obligation to step in when children are being beaten by their parents.

I agree SanAntonio. The idea that some how the UN will gain influence over our parenting styles is absurd.

The folks who should worry are the child protection agencies. In Florida an 8-year-old boy hung himself. An investigation showed that the state had him on two powerful antipsychotic drugs that had warnings about suicidal side effects. The number of children in the state's care on these types of drugs was double that of the normal population.

How about the children in Pennsylvania who were being shipped to jails so the judges could get kick backs from the privately-run prisons.

These conventions address the way the government treats children.

San I agree with you. The law is already there so why do we need a UN treaty? Why do we need to give the UN power to do what the law should already be doing?

San I agree with you. The law is already there so why do we need a UN treaty? Why do we need to give the UN power to do what the law should already be doing?

#44 | Posted by TaoWarrior

Maybe not so much because WE need it, but because much of the rest of the world DOES? And lending the weight of the United States to the treaty just might help children who desperately need that help.

Best argument I have heard so far san.

Really once you get past the name calling on here there are ocasionaly some good points made.

I could go for that as a reason just as long as the UN remembers that if they want to enforce it in the US that we are a free people with a right to the shotgun that greets them at the door.

Green, sorry but you are stuck on stupid. Not sure if it is a lack of reading comprehension skills or you was enjoy deception.

KEOWTO should not be far behind.....

it makes sense though since we are so awash in extra money just laying around

We don't need the UN to legistlate stuff like this for us. Whatever resources were dedicated to our ratification of this treaty were wasted.

Most christian zionists need help from the state. Something has to counter effect the religious bs they pump into their kids heads.

#29 | Posted by jackass

Separate of Church and State.

Of course, I don't believe that particular separation is written in the Constitution. But, it's a two edged sword and is quoted often.

for such a powerful country, the u.s. always acts like a scared little pussy when it comes to signing symbolic treaties that send a message to the countries that don't rule by common decency. Blinded by fear of being told what to do by the u.n. (which is not even remotely possible under the parameters of this agreement), many seem to forget that these measures are at times implemented to send a message to the countries that are not so good to their kids. And yes, by not signing it, you are sending out a message of not caring. We signed it eons ago, and I've yet to see u.n. peacekeepers busting down doors of homes to check up on how kids are treated.

Oh yeah, almost forgot: BOO ya paranoid motherfuckers!

Rogue,

The language is vague:

"2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members."

When I read this clause, it can be interpretted 2 different ways. Now, had what I put in bold been written as and/or; your position would be stronger. However, as it is written, this clause can be construed as the child's status, activities and expressed opinions are out-of-reach (not something most parents would agree to) and THEN the beliefs of their parents can not be the cause of discrimination.

When I read this clause, it can be interpretted 2 different ways. Now, had what I put in bold been written as and/or; your position would be stronger. However, as it is written, this clause can be construed as the child's status, activities and expressed opinions are out-of-reach (not something most parents would agree to) and THEN the beliefs of their parents can not be the cause of discrimination.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ

I'm sorry Jeff, but IMO you need to go back to basic English sentence structure. As written, it is clear that the reference is to the status, activities, opinions, or beliefs OF THE PARENTS; and that children cannot be discriminated against based on any of those things.

BIG mistake!!!

Children are not property. They have basic rights.

#1 | Posted by hope4hope

What country do you live in? Childern have no rights in the USA???

I'm sorry Jeff, but IMO you need to go back to basic English sentence structure.

I guess we would say the same about you.

does U.S. law currently allow children to be descriminated against due to the belief of their parents? does U.S. law not already protect the and recognize the rights of children, to education, and protection from both the parents or anyone who would do them harm, for whatever reason? please quote a statutes...

what is stupid is going back and signing a 20 year old treaty while living in a country that already recognizes those rights. tell it to Sudan or one of those prick little countries that signs this "symbolic" treaty yet does NOTHING to abide by it.

#20 | Posted by moomanfl

Absolutely the best comment I can find to demonstrate that people are irrational idiots. Can you REALLY be that stupid? No, seriously, this is a legitimate question; Are you really that stupid?

Nearly every country on the planet has signed this treaty and ratified it. I don't see the UN going in and governing how parents treat their kids in these countries. This is just another idiot ranting about the UN. If you had any clue how effective the UN is for negotiating agreements that you never heard of, you'd be worshipping the UN Charter every night before bed. You stupid dolt. Its most basic purpose and why its effective: It gets a bunch of world leaders in one building making it easy to negotiate. Outside of the Security Council (which was never intended to be incredibly effective unless their was a threat of global war), the UN is an effective institution.

Time for a lesson in international law for the morons out there. The UN posts many of these so called international treaties (aka conventions). They are binding. But not in the same way as domestic law. The only real enforcement mechanism in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has little more than the power to tell countries to follow the treaty dictates. And the violations have to generally be pretty amazing to even have a case make it to the ICJ.

So go beat your kid with a car antenna. Don't expect Peace Keepers any time soon.

#58 | Posted by Sycophant at 2009-06-24 05:40 PM

Wow... nice rant about nothing. Please point out where I said one disparaging word about the UN. I only argued the meaning of that piece of the treaty, not the UN's ability to enforce it. We all know they are useless when it comes to enforcing anything as history has proven time and time again.

Guess the only stupid one is you.

I'm sorry Jeff, but IMO you need to go back to basic English sentence structure. As written, it is clear that the reference is to the status, activities, opinions, or beliefs OF THE PARENTS; and that children cannot be discriminated against based on any of those things.

That may very well be the intent, but it ISN'T clear given the language.

Not oven close.

Sorry.

Jeff doesn't care about other peoples children only his own

Jeff doesn't care about other peoples children only his own

#61 | Posted by jackass at 2009-06-24 06:31 PM

Your comment is so damn predictable. It was already stated that you could put an fascist piece of legislation in a treaty with this title you wanted and there would always be hacks like you that claim if you are against it for any reason you are "against the children".

You are predictable always siding with your tax dollars and not with humanity

You are predictable always siding with your tax dollars and not with humanity

#63 | Posted by jackass at 2009-06-24 06:39 PM

Do you cut and paste your responses from a website on cliches? That was the most pathetic attempt at a biting comment I have seen in the last hour at least.

You are a ga rethug. The lowest form of human life on earth. I just wish the misfortune you wish on others happens to you and your family. That is the only way you will learn.

I just wish the misfortune you wish on others happens to you and your family.

Looks like the only one wishing ill on anyone here is you. But don't let facts stand in your way... continue your rant:

3

2

1

Go!