Posts Tagged ‘Convention on the Rights of the Child’

This post is related to an earlier post The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child . . .  If you are interested in reading more about this topic check the earlier post.

The United States is debating the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).  At this time it has been signed, during the Clinton presidency,  but not ratified.  The United States government had an active role in the drafting of the Convention. President Barack Obama has described the failure to ratify the Convention as embarrassing’ and has promised to review this.

The non-ratification of the treaty is due to the opposition claiming  it conflicts with the U. S. Constitution.  Legal concerns over ratification have mostly focused on issues of sovereignty and federalism.  Meanwhile the U.S. Supreme Court has held that no federal, state or local government may interfere with the parent-child relationship.  In addition some Americans think the U.S.  already has the same things covered as the CRC within their own laws.  The two reasons often given for the US Senate not ratifying the convention were:

  • Some states allowed children to be given the death penalty, which the Convention would not allow. In 2005, the US Supreme Court decision in Roper v. Simmons has held execution of juveniles to be unconstitutional, citing the Convention as one of several indications that “the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty”.
  • They claim “this Treaty would virtually undermine parents’ rights as we know it in the United States.”

Ratification of the UNCRC by the United States would require representatives of the U.S. government to appear before the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, a panel of child rights experts from around the world, every 5 years to explain their implementation of such issues as universal health insurance for all American children, currently a human right in other western industrialized nations.  One of the most controversial article of the CRC is Article 12, which says:

“Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child … the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child…”

Another highly debated article is Article 37 which prohibits sentencing of juveniles to life imprisonment with no opportunity for parole.  As of 2002, laws in 22 states allowed for the execution of juveniles.  The 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roper v. Simmons  found juvenile execution unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.  Unfortunately this decision did not address the question of life without possibility of parole.[ The 2010 decision Graham v. Florida limited the sentence of life imprisonment with no opportunity for parole to the crime of homicide. As a result of this ruling only 6 U.S. states prohibited sentencing of juveniles to life imprisonment with no opportunity for parole in all cases.

In general the objection of the ratification of the CRC is concentrated on the following three beliefs:

  • would endanger national and state sovereignty;
  • would undermine parental authority by allowing the UN to dictate how parents raise and teach their children; and
  • would enable children the right to do as they please, including taking legal action against their parents, having abortions, joining gangs, etc.

The United States is the only country, (other than Somalia who did not have an acting government) to not ratify the CRC.  It is embarrassing. The U.S.  is known all over the world for its humanitarian role in helping other countries and helping overcome disasters.  Isn’t the children of the world worthy of the same humanitarian aid?  Please consider contacting your congressmen and ask for the ratification of this treaty.  Put the children of the world first and build a better future.  Show them that you care.

Source:

US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Wikipedia

RATIFICATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: THE PROS AND CONS FROM A CHILD’S RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE, By Elizabeth Bartholet

 

 This blog is a continuation of the previous blog Declaration of Children’s Rights.   The purpose of this blog is to give some background in preparation for some information to be provided in a subsequent blog.

Besides the promotion of children’s rights by Janusz Korczak in the early 20th century, the first effective attempt to promote children’s rights was the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, drafted by Eglantyne Jebb in 1923 and adopted by the League of Nations in 1924. This was accepted by the United Nations on its formation and updated in 1959, and replaced with a more extensive UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989.

From the formation of the United Nations in the 1940s and extending to present day, the Children’s Rights Movement has become global in focus. Children around the world have increasingly become engaged in illegal, forced child labor, genital mutilation, military service, and sex trafficking. Several international organizations have rallied to the assistance of children. They include Save the Children, Free the Children, and the Children’s Defense Fund.

The Child Rights Information Network, or CRIN, formed in 1983, is a group of 1,600 non-governmental organizations from around the world which advocate for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These organization’s report on their countries’ progress towards implementation, as do governments that have ratified the Convention. Every five years governments are required to report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.

The principles of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child are:

 Article 1 (Definition of the child): The Convention defines a ‘child’ as a person below the age of 18, unless the laws of a particular country set the legal age for adulthood younger. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, the monitoring body for the Convention, has encouraged States to review the age of majority if it is set below 18 and to increase the level of protection for all children under 18.

Article 2 (Non-discrimination):The Convention applies to all children, whatever their race, religion or abilities; whatever they think or say, whatever type of family they come from. It doesn’t matter where children live, what language they speak, what their parents do, whether they are boys or girls, what their culture is, whether they have a disability or whether they are rich or poor. No child should be treated unfairly on any basis.

Article 3 (Best interests of the child):The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly applies to budget, policy and law makers.

Article 4 (Protection of rights):Governments have a responsibility to take all available measures to make sure children’s rights are respected, protected and fulfilled. When countries ratify the Convention, they agree to review their laws relating to children. This involves assessing their social services, legal, health and educational systems, as well as levels of funding for these services. Governments are then obliged to take all necessary steps to ensure that the minimum standards set by the Convention in these areas are being met. They must help families protect children’s rights and create an environment where they can grow and reach their potential. In some instances, this may involve changing existing laws or creating new ones. Such legislative changes are not imposed, but come about through the same process by which any law is created or reformed within a country. Article 41 of the Convention points out the when a country already has higher legal standards than those seen in the Convention, the higher standards always prevail.

Article 5 (Parental guidance):Governments should respect the rights and responsibilities of families to direct and guide their children so that, as they grow, they learn to use their rights properly. Helping children to understand their rights does not mean pushing them to make choices with consequences that they are too young to handle. Article 5 encourages parents to deal with rights issues “in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child”. The Convention does not take responsibility for children away from their parents and give more authority to governments. It does place on governments the responsibility to protect and assist families in fulfilling their essential role as nurturers of children.

Article 6 (Survival and development): Children have the right to live. Governments should ensure that children survive and develop healthily.

Article 7 (Registration, name, nationality, care):All children have the right to a legally registered name, officially recognised by the government. Children have the right to a nationality (to belong to a country). Children also have the right to know and, as far as possible, to be cared for by their parents.

Article 8 (Preservation of identity):Children have the right to an identity – an official record of who they are. Governments should respect children’s right to a name, a nationality and family ties.

Article 9 (Separation from parents):Children have the right to live with their parent(s), unless it is bad for them. Children whose parents do not live together have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might hurt the child.

Article 10 (Family reunification):Families whose members live in different countries should be allowed to move between those countries so that parents and children can stay in contact, or get back together as a family.

Article 11 (Kidnapping):Governments should take steps to stop children being taken out of their own country illegally. This article is particularly concerned with parental abductions. The Convention’s Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography has a provision that concerns abduction for financial gain.

Article 12 (Respect for the views of the child):When adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinions taken into account. This does not mean that children can now tell their parents what to do. This Convention encourages adults to listen to the opinions of children and involve them in decision-making — not give children authority over adults. Article 12 does not interfere with parents’ right and responsibility to express their views on matters affecting their children. Moreover, the Convention recognizes that the level of a child’s participation in decisions must be appropriate to the child’s level of maturity. Children’s ability to form and express their opinions develops with age and most adults will naturally give the views of teenagers greater weight than those of a preschooler, whether in family, legal or administrative decisions. Article 12 (Respect for the views of the child):When adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinions taken into account.

Article 13 (Freedom of expression):Children have the right to get and share information, as long as the information is not damaging to them or others. In exercising the right to freedom of expression, children have the responsibility to also respect the rights, freedoms and reputations of others. The freedom of expression includes the right to share information in any way they choose, including by talking, drawing or writing.

Article 14 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion):Children have the right to think and believe what they want and to practise their religion, as long as they are not stopping other people from enjoying their rights. Parents should help guide their children in these matters. The Convention respects the rights and duties of parents in providing religious and moral guidance to their children. Religious groups around the world have expressed support for the Convention, which indicates that it in no way prevents parents from bringing their children up within a religious tradition. At the same time, the Convention recognizes that as children mature and are able to form their own views, some may question certain religious practices or cultural traditions. The Convention supports children’s right to examine their beliefs, but it also states that their right to express their beliefs implies respect for the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 15 (Freedom of association):Children have the right to meet together and to join groups and organisations, as long as it does not stop other people from enjoying their rights. In exercising their rights, children have the responsibility to respect the rights, freedoms and reputations of others.

Article 16 (Right to privacy):Children have a right to privacy. The law should protect them from attacks against their way of life, their good name, their families and their homes.

Article 17 (Access to information; mass media):Children have the right to get information that is important to their health and well-being. Governments should encourage mass media – radio, television, newspapers and Internet content sources – to provide information that children can understand and to not promote materials that could harm children. Mass media should particularly be encouraged to supply information in languages that minority and indigenous children can understand. Children should also have access to children’s books.

Article 18 (Parental responsibilities; state assistance):Both parents share responsibility for bringing up their children, and should always consider what is best for each child. Governments must respect the responsibility of parents for providing appropriate guidance to their children – the Convention does not take responsibility for children away from their parents and give more authority to governments. It places a responsibility on governments to provide support services to parents, especially if both parents work outside the home.

Article 19 (Protection from all forms of violence):Children have the right to be protected from being hurt and mistreated, physically or mentally. Governments should ensure that children are properly cared for and protect them from violence, abuse and neglect by their parents, or anyone else who looks after them. In terms of discipline, the Convention does not specify what forms of punishment parents should use. However any form of discipline involving violence is unacceptable. There are ways to discipline children that are effective in helping children learn about family and social expectations for their behaviour – ones that are non-violent, are appropriate to the child’s level of development and take the best interests of the child into consideration. In most countries, laws already define what sorts of punishments are considered excessive or abusive. It is up to each government to review these laws in light of the Convention.

Article 20 (Children deprived of family environment):Children who cannot be looked after by their own family have a right to special care and must be looked after properly, by people who respect their ethnic group, religion, culture and language.

Article 21 (Adoption):Children have the right to care and protection if they are adopted or in foster care. The first concern must be what is best for them. The same rules should apply whether they are adopted in the country where they were born, or if they are taken to live in another country.

Article 22 (Refugee children):Children have the right to special protection and help if they are refugees (if they have been forced to leave their home and live in another country), as well as all the rights in this Convention.

Article 23 (Children with disabilities):Children who have any kind of disability have the right to special care and support, as well as all the rights in the Convention, so that they can live full and independent lives.

Article 24 (Health and health services):Children have the right to good quality health care – the best health care possible – to safe drinking water, nutritious food, a clean and safe environment, and information to help them stay healthy. Rich countries should help poorer countries achieve this. Article

25 (Review of treatment in care):Children who are looked after by their local authorities, rather than their parents, have the right to have these living arrangements looked at regularly to see if they are the most appropriate. Their care and treatment should always be based on “the best interests of the child”. (see Guiding Principles, Article 3)

Article 26 (Social security):Children – either through their guardians or directly – have the right to help from the government if they are poor or in need.

Article 27 (Adequate standard of living):Children have the right to a standard of living that is good enough to meet their physical and mental needs. Governments should help families and guardians who cannot afford to provide this, particularly with regard to food, clothing and housing.

Article 28: (Right to education):All children have the right to a primary education, which should be free. Wealthy countries should help poorer countries achieve this right. Discipline in schools should respect children’s dignity. For children to benefit from education, schools must be run in an orderly way – without the use of violence. Any form of school discipline should take into account the child’s human dignity. Therefore, governments must ensure that school administrators review their discipline policies and eliminate any discipline practices involving physical or mental violence, abuse or neglect. The Convention places a high value on education. Young people should be encouraged to reach the highest level of education of which they are capable.

Article 29 (Goals of education):Children’s education should develop each child’s personality, talents and abilities to the fullest. It should encourage children to respect others, human rights and their own and other cultures. It should also help them learn to live peacefully, protect the environment and respect other people. Children have a particular responsibility to respect the rights their parents, and education should aim to develop respect for the values and culture of their parents. The Convention does not address such issues as school uniforms, dress codes, the singing of the national anthem or prayer in schools. It is up to governments and school officials in each country to determine whether, in the context of their society and existing laws, such matters infringe upon other rights protected by the Convention.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has outlined a standard premise for the children’s rights movement and has been ratified by all but two nations – the United States and Somalia. Somalia’s inability to sign the Convention is attributed to their lack of governmental structure. The US administration under Bush opposed ratifying the Convention because of “serious political and legal concerns that it conflicts with U.S. policies on the central role of parents, sovereignty, and state and local law.”  How embarrassing and shameful!

With all of this colorful rhetoric, I still wonder why there are numerous issues affecting the children of the world.

Information provided by: http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf

to be continued . . .