• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

SouthernDemocrat said:
Anytime we are along side Somalia as the only nation on earth that has not ratified a human rights treaty, then I think its safe to assume we are in the wrong.
Click to expand...

Other nations signing or not not signing treaties is not a reason for us to sign away parts of our sovereignty away bit by bit.
 
RightinNYC said:
And nobody will care, because it will be a stupid argument. Sounds similar to what happens already.
Click to expand...

Except that it will result in more frivolous lawsuits, intervention from liberal child protection agencies, undue publicity for radical anti-religious activities. That Newdow (sp?) character would LOVE it if this were ratified.
 
ludahai said:
Except that it will result in more frivolous lawsuits, intervention from liberal child protection agencies, undue publicity for radical anti-religious activities. That Newdow (sp?) character would LOVE it if this were ratified.
Click to expand...

So this is happened amount the other 5.7 billion people on earth whose nations did ratify the treaty?
 
jamesrage said:
Other nations signing or not not signing treaties is not a reason for us to sign away parts of our sovereignty away bit by bit.
Click to expand...

I supposed we should never have ratified anything out of the Geneva Conventions either then huh.
 
Keorythe said:
The intention of the treaty really doesn't matter a hoot. These kinds of laws and regulations should be done within the country's own laws itself. Not an outside entity such as the UN. What makes this even worse is that the provisions for enforcement are pretty damn weak as usual except for their ability to interfere in specific court cases. Its ripe for abuse. Just because nothing has happened yet doesn't make it ok.
Click to expand...

And where would the abuses come from? It's up to each nation to ratify and enforce the treaty. It's not as though the UN has its own police force to enforce specific values. Each country will have to interpret this treaty according to its cultural practices. The whole point is that children have an avenue of escape if they are in dire circumstances.

Keorythe said:
The UN can't get their crap together on treaties and policies already on their books. Why would I want to trust them with another "foot in the door" policy that would give up rights to them?
Click to expand...

Too many people view the UN as a suprainternational enforcer. It's not a separate body from the rest of the world's nations. It's made up of nations. Every single committee has nations which are responsible for putting legislation into action. If the UN is a failure, it's because its constituent nations have also failed.

Secondly, the amount of agreement and enforcement is placed squarely on the shoulders of the participant nations. The UN can't force anybody to act... it's just a forum for nations to come together and make agreements. No agreement in the UN is truly binding, it is also based on faith between the world of States.

But if States want to save face with their allies and partners, then they need to stick to their agreements. The world is still an anarchy at heart (according to POLISCI 101) and so agreements are abandoned or adhered to as it suits the needs and agendas of individual nations. This is the central reason why the UN's policy implementation is usually chaotic. There is no super power to bring out a stick and hit those who disobey.
 
ludahai said:
Do those countries have a disproportionate number of the world's trial lawyers?
Click to expand...

Not a lot of money in representing children against their parents as a rule. Doubt trial lawyers will be lining up for that.
 
ludahai said:
Except that it will result in more frivolous lawsuits, intervention from liberal child protection agencies, undue publicity for radical anti-religious activities. That Newdow (sp?) character would LOVE it if this were ratified.
Click to expand...

Can you link me to the provision of the treaty that creates a private cause of action? Thanks.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Not a lot of money in representing children against their parents as a rule. Doubt trial lawyers will be lining up for that.
Click to expand...

ACLU? Ever heard of them?

I live in a country that is not even a signatory to the treaty and I don't see noteworthy abuses against children here. Why is this needed in the US?
 
RightinNYC said:
Can you link me to the provision of the treaty that creates a private cause of action? Thanks.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to, and you know it. It depends on the enabling legislation in the US and the decisions of federal courts on how the treaty gets applied and interpreted - and given the bunch of bozos in charge in DC right now, do we really want to give them another tool to get intrusive in the lives of people?

Again, I live in a country that is a non-signatory. I don't see why it is even needed.
 
WORDING

Is always more important then Intention in such things.


Kyoto for example has "intentions" that doesn't seem so bad. Its the wording which makes it garbage treaty to sign.

People say it will have no effect..it sets a precedent that the signatory has agreed to which can be used as a legal basis for an argument.
IOW yes it does matter and have effect if you sign it.
 
Ikari said:
Shows just how far the government is willing to go sometimes to interfere. Including sending in the ATF to burn your building down.
Click to expand...

And you've got no proof of this. Thanks for proving you're one step bellow 9/11 truthers.
 
Southern Democrat said:
Anytime we are along side Somalia as the only nation on earth that has not ratified a human rights treaty, then I think its safe to assume we are in the wrong.
Click to expand...

There must be more to this, much more...The world is not that stupid....is it ??
But there must be a good reason why this has not been signed..
Being lumped in with Somalia... the ultimate insult..
 
Orius said:
The purpose of the treaty is to prevent children from being co-opted into cults, military militias (think Taliban), and the sex trade, even if their parents want them to do it. They have the right to say no and go to the authorities for help. If a country has ratified this treaty, then they will be obligated to help those children. It's a good idea because in a lot of countries, children must serve their parents no matter what, and sometimes parents put their children in bad situations for their self-gain.

The intention of this treaty is not to prevent people from parenting their children according to their values, but to protect the safety and well being of a child from obvious dangers.
Click to expand...
It helps to further the power of the state over the ever diminishing autonomy of groups like the family. It is a bad idea and no amount of talk about good intentions makes up for that.
 
earthworm said:
There must be more to this, much more...The world is not that stupid....is it ??
But there must be a good reason why this has not been signed..
Being lumped in with Somalia... the ultimate insult..
Click to expand...

Again, what is the compelling reason for the US to ratify this treaty? Taiwan is not a signatory and I don't see any problems for children here. It isn't needed here in Taiwan nor is it needed in the US.
 
ludahai said:
Again, what is the compelling reason for the US to ratify this treaty? Taiwan is not a signatory and I don't see any problems for children here. It isn't needed here in Taiwan nor is it needed in the US.
Click to expand...

Message and Image. Pure and simple. There is no reason what so ever for a modern western nation to sign things like human rights treaties, non aggression treaties and so on, because they simply do not apply in any way to our domestic situation. However we do sign such things because the image gained from doing so is considerably positive in doing so and the message for especially international politics is huge.

Signing the treaty (and ratifying) the treat on non discrimination against Women, or this treaty the OP posted, does nothing that the US, or EU does not already have. However it sends a message and image that we seriously believe in such things and join the rest of the world in signing such a document to show our intent and frankly points out the countries that do not agree with such things. Those that do not sign it all fit in a certain category and it is not a category the US or any European country would want to be in. I mean who the hell wants to be in the same boat on women's rights as Iran and Saudi Arabia? But until recently (in fact not sure that the treaty has been ratified yet by the US), the US was in the same boat as these nations on the issue of discrimination against women.

There can not be any erosion of US (or any countries) U.S. Rights if the treaty encompasses already all of US law on the subject. Does signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the US did) erode US rights in any way? Of course not!
 
Who cares if we sign it or not. If we violate it, whats the UN going to do about it? Write us a nasty little letter? I say we go ahead and sign a bunch of UN documents and violate all of them, just to show the UN what a worthless, toothless hag it has become.
 
WI Crippler said:
Who cares if we sign it or not. If we violate it, whats the UN going to do about it? Write us a nasty little letter? I say we go ahead and sign a bunch of UN documents and violate all of them, just to show the UN what a worthless, toothless hag it has become.
Click to expand...

That is because you seam have zero clue on what the UN is... like most American's. The UN has never had and never will have a "police function" that the UN can unilaterally use to "punish" member nations. The UN is nothing more than a gather point of nations on this planet to discuss global issues in a peaceful way. If these members see an issue with a member country that threatens regional or world stability, then yes the countries via the UN can do something about it if they agree.

But back to the issue at had.. you say so what if we sign it or not. If the US violate it? Does that mean you are for child exploitation and child workers? I would say that if the US did violate in an organised way, then the US far more to worry about internally than any outside force. If god forbid the US did violate this treaty (after signing and ratifying it), the shame of exploiting children should be big enough to stop such practices .. well hopefully.
 
PeteEU said:
That is because you seam have zero clue on what the UN is... like most American's. The UN has never had and never will have a "police function" that the UN can unilaterally use to "punish" member nations. The UN is nothing more than a gather point of nations on this planet to discuss global issues in a peaceful way. If these members see an issue with a member country that threatens regional or world stability, then yes the countries via the UN can do something about it if they agree.

But back to the issue at had.. you say so what if we sign it or not. If the US violate it? Does that mean you are for child exploitation and child workers? I would say that if the US did violate in an organised way, then the US far more to worry about internally than any outside force. If god forbid the US did violate this treaty (after signing and ratifying it), the shame of exploiting children should be big enough to stop such practices .. well hopefully.
Click to expand...

We don't have a systematic problem of child exploitation in this country. Yes, some children grow up in cults. I was one of them myself. But for all the small incidents that do happen in this country, a majority of this country does not exploit chidren in the manner you speak of. Despite our not ratifying this worthless treaty(really, if all nations except the US and Somalia have signed it, why do other countries have worse exploitation of children than we do?), our nation is not systematically enslaving children. All you argument is based on is IF, IF, IF. Take a look at the reality of the situation, and make your argument from there, instead of using worst case scenarios that don't exist to build your weak case. We don't need this treaty, and signing it is just one of those stupid time wasters, just so we can have Europeans pat us on the back. It means nothing, because it cannot be enforced. Its an empty gesture, just like every other damn resolution that comes out of the UN.
 
WI Crippler said:
We don't have a systematic problem of child exploitation in this country. Yes, some children grow up in cults. I was one of them myself. But for all the small incidents that do happen in this country, a majority of this country does not exploit chidren in the manner you speak of. Despite our not ratifying this worthless treaty(really, if all nations except the US and Somalia have signed it, why do other countries have worse exploitation of children than we do?), our nation is not systematically enslaving children. All you argument is based on is IF, IF, IF. Take a look at the reality of the situation, and make your argument from there, instead of using worst case scenarios that don't exist to build your weak case. We don't need this treaty, and signing it is just one of those stupid time wasters, just so we can have Europeans pat us on the back. It means nothing, because it cannot be enforced. Its an empty gesture, just like every other damn resolution that comes out of the UN.
Click to expand...

No you dont get it.

My argument is not a bunch of "ifs".. it is about image and message. By signing these "worthless" treaties, we send the message that we believe in such things to countries around the world that dont necessary remotely live up to such things and are willing to commit to international treaties to prove to other nations that we are serious (especially if we dont live up to them ourselves 100% of the time). It also put those that do not sign such treaties in a bad light. Does it have any practical application signing or not signing it? Not really, but neither does signing the Human rights declaration or any other treaty, and yet I doubt you would claim that the US should withdraw from the Human rights declaration just because it is a "useless piece of paper".

Quite a few treaties are "worthless" in context to local US or European laws, because they already cover the treaty material, but we have signed them any ways because of the intent, image and message that such a signing sends to countries that do not live up to the principles in the treaty.
 
PeteEU said:
No you dont get it.

My argument is not a bunch of "ifs".. it is about image and message. By signing these "worthless" treaties, we send the message that we believe in such things to countries around the world that dont necessary remotely live up to such things and are willing to commit to international treaties to prove to other nations that we are serious (especially if we dont live up to them ourselves 100% of the time). It also put those that do not sign such treaties in a bad light. Does it have any practical application signing or not signing it? Not really, but neither does signing the Human rights declaration or any other treaty, and yet I doubt you would claim that the US should withdraw from the Human rights declaration just because it is a "useless piece of paper".

Quite a few treaties are "worthless" in context to local US or European laws, because they already cover the treaty material, but we have signed them any ways because of the intent, image and message that such a signing sends to countries that do not live up to the principles in the treaty.
Click to expand...

Treaties aren't benign in the least. They are binding documents that carry the force of law, and should be entered into with as much care and caution as a nation can muster. It's not about style, or shouldn't be, and they shouldn't be signed just so one can look good.
 
PeteEU said:
No you dont get it.

My argument is not a bunch of "ifs".. it is about image and message. By signing these "worthless" treaties, we send the message that we believe in such things to countries around the world that dont necessary remotely live up to such things and are willing to commit to international treaties to prove to other nations that we are serious (especially if we dont live up to them ourselves 100% of the time). It also put those that do not sign such treaties in a bad light. Does it have any practical application signing or not signing it? Not really, but neither does signing the Human rights declaration or any other treaty, and yet I doubt you would claim that the US should withdraw from the Human rights declaration just because it is a "useless piece of paper".

Quite a few treaties are "worthless" in context to local US or European laws, because they already cover the treaty material, but we have signed them any ways because of the intent, image and message that such a signing sends to countries that do not live up to the principles in the treaty.
Click to expand...

And thats the problem. Countries too busy, staring at themselves in the mirror, worried about their image to others, rather than being who they are and working towards actually making things better. Thats why documents like this one are absurd. Its nothing but a bunch of cheerleaders, trying to feel better about themselves.
 
PeteEU said:
No you dont get it.

My argument is not a bunch of "ifs".. it is about image and message. By signing these "worthless" treaties, we send the message that we believe in such things to countries around the world that dont necessary remotely live up to such things and are willing to commit to international treaties to prove to other nations that we are serious (especially if we dont live up to them ourselves 100% of the time). It also put those that do not sign such treaties in a bad light. Does it have any practical application signing or not signing it? Not really, but neither does signing the Human rights declaration or any other treaty, and yet I doubt you would claim that the US should withdraw from the Human rights declaration just because it is a "useless piece of paper".

Quite a few treaties are "worthless" in context to local US or European laws, because they already cover the treaty material, but we have signed them any ways because of the intent, image and message that such a signing sends to countries that do not live up to the principles in the treaty.
Click to expand...
Who is 'we', you and the little mouse in your pocket? Are you an American citizen? BTW, who jumped all over the US because GWB wouldn't sign that useless POS Kyoto Treaty? I think it was Europe, yeah.
 
Moon said:
Treaties aren't benign in the least. They are binding documents that carry the force of law, and should be entered into with as much care and caution as a nation can muster. It's not about style, or shouldn't be, and they shouldn't be signed just so one can look good.
Click to expand...

Bull****. Treaties are a piece of paper. The content of such treaties depend on what the countries want as content. If a treaty is designed with a "punishment" part then the treaty has more bite, however ultimately any country can say FU to the treaty and do what they want, without much consequence.

Most treaties are nothing but documents of intent. However saying that, these documents of intent actually mean something to nations that cherish the principles of the content. Human rights for example. The Universal Declaration of Human rights is a treaty, with no "punishment" aspect in it. If a nation breaks human rights.. so what. However we cherish it because it's principles are an integral part of our democracies. But in principle, the UDHR is a worthless piece of paper from the view of nations that already live up to its principles and have those embedded in their own democratic tradition and legal framework.

This document is a document of intent. Abuse of children world wide is a big issue. While the US and Europe has laws banning abuse of children for the most part, that does not mean that the intent of this document is any different than the intent of the UDHR. Is the US afraid of pissing off a bunch of religious freaks that abuse children? Or is the US just embarrassed that it's own legal system is not yet geared up 100% to combat the abuse of children when it conflicts with "religious beliefs"? To be frank, it is a sad day when religion is more important than the well being of our children.

So as I said, this document is a document of intent, no different than the UDHR or any other treaty that dictates an intent of the signer to follow the principles of the document, either by changing ones laws or keeping laws in place that already live up to the document's intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom