Last week I wrote about the death of an Indian schoolgirl due to corporal punishment, which got me reading about corporal punishment rules worldwide, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), an international treaty that has been signed by 193 of the world's countries -- that's every member of the United Nations save two. Guess who hasn't signed it yet? The United States -- along with that bastion of human rights, Somalia.
This week conservative parenting guru John Rosemond had an editorial in the Washington Times about how the US needs to stand strong against signing the UNCRC, because he feels it would erode the rights of parents. Because there's been an influx of new political pressure to sign the treaty now that Obama's in office (clearly Bush was never going to sign it), he urges readers to seek more information and then to "call or write to your senators and let them
know how you would like them to vote should ratification come to the
Senate floor. Given that ours is still a government of, for and by the
people, let us pray that the people make themselves heard!"
Shockingly enough, I totally agree. But first, read more about the UNCRC and figure out what you want to tell them when you call. If you are eager to preserve your right to spank your child, you may urge them to vote no, when and if it comes up. But first read it yourself; you may find that you like what it has to say. A sampling, and this is what I found when visiting the site Rosemond himself recommends, a site opposed to the UNCRC:
- Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
- A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
- Children
would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would
only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
- The
best interest of the child principle would give the government the
ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government
worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
- A child’s “right
to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of
every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
- According
to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend
more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
- Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
- Christian
schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that
Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29"
of the treaty.
- Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
- Children
would have the right to reproductive health information and services,
including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
This is meant to be scary stuff! But to me -- and to the people of Canada, Mexico, England, Australia, all of Western Europe, all of Africa, all of South and Central America, etc. -- it sounds pretty reasonable. Clearly numbers 4, 5, and 7 are kind of red herring-ish (we have a busy enough court system as it is). But just as clearly Rosemond and his ilk find it scary to contemplate a nation in which children are free from physical punishment, free to choose their own religion, and free to learn about sex, science, and other religions -- not to mention one which supports children's welfare with more than just rhetoric.
Sounds like a country that truly would leave no child behind. What a huge step forward it would be if we could join the rest of the world in that goal.
Related:The Philippines Joins Europe in Outlawing Corporal Punishment
The Guy's Kind Of A Jerk, But He's Got a Point
More by this author:
They Say: Bilingual Babies Learn Better
Why Are We So Shocked When Women Kill?
(Public) Breastfeeding Now Legal in Massachusetts
Another Hospital Baby Mix-Up, Now With Added Racism!
