• 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

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,179
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Sen. Barbara Boxer is pushing the Obama administration to move forward with ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a controversial treaty that has never gained much support in the U.S.

By Joseph Abrams
Wednesday, February 25, 2009


"Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.

The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.

Critics say the treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.

Nearly every country in the world is party to it -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not -- but the convention has gained little support in the U.S. and never been sent to the Senate for ratification.

That could change soon."



More nanny government from our beneficent overlords.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Does anyone else not really understand why this treaty is "controversial"?

It's been in place in the UK for 20 years and I don't think I've ever heard of it!

Parental rights groups are similarly stirred; they see in the U.N. convention a threat that the government will meddle with even the simplest freedoms to raise their children as they see fit.

"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision," said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. "It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes."


Priceless, the UN is going to make it illegal for children to wash dishes! I thought I was reading the Onion for a second.
 
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.

We all know it is the right of any parent to throw their children into cults. Who ever heard of kids and cults not mixing?

branch-davidian.jpg


Oh....right.....
 
Last edited:
Classic. The US does the talk but does not do the walk so to say. I remember the time when the US was on the same page as most Islamic nations on Women's rights, and refused to sign the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Their excuse? Because women in the US have this right as part of US law.. so freaking what! Does the US agree or disagree with the principles of eliminating all forms of discrimination against women or not?! I surely hope the US joins the free and democratic world in going against child abuse and discrimination against women and does not like it has done far too often, side with radical nations like the Vatican, Iran, Saudi Arabia and so on, purely based on hidden religious motives.
 
Here's the thing:

Even if this treaty is the devil and could conceivably be interpreted in a way that would give kids the right to smoke crack at the dinner table or whatever...

1) Why has no other country had a problem with it?, and
2) What on earth makes anyone think we would interpret it as such?

The US, like every country, has a long and illustrious history of ratifying a treaty and then including enough reservations in the implementing legislation to ensure that it doesn't do anything we don't want it to do.

I wouldn't worry about it forcing anyone to do anything drastic.
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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?
 
We all know it is the right of any parent to throw their children into cults. Who ever heard of kids and cults not mixing?

branch-davidian.jpg


Oh....right.....

Shows just how far the government is willing to go sometimes to interfere. Including sending in the ATF to burn your building down.
 
We all know it is the right of any parent to throw their children into cults. Who ever heard of kids and cults not mixing?

branch-davidian.jpg


Oh....right.....




Whoever heard of sending federal agents in with incendiary devices in a building full of children.

Or shooting the weaver child through a door as his wife clutched the child...

Or snatching Elian without going through the courts to return him to the tyranny of Cuba....




Oh wait..
 
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.
That's just total bull****! They already have those rights; stop apologizing for the UN. This isn't "other" countries, so let them ratify the damn thing. I don't care what the intentions are, I care about how it will **** us.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
 
Why don't we just pass laws that state that if a child does not want to join a crazy cult with their parents, they don't have to? Why does this need to be an international treaty?

Maybe that's what I'm not getting. Couldn't we achieve the same goals without entering into a treaty?
 
Why don't we just pass laws that state that if a child does not want to join a crazy cult with their parents, they don't have to? Why does this need to be an international treaty?

Maybe that's what I'm not getting. Couldn't we achieve the same goals without entering into a treaty?

I'm going to define Scientology, Mormon, and Christianity as crazy cults. HAHAHA, take that!
 
Why don't we just pass laws that state that if a child does not want to join a crazy cult with their parents, they don't have to? Why does this need to be an international treaty?

Maybe that's what I'm not getting. Couldn't we achieve the same goals without entering into a treaty?
Because the UN is so much better and smarter than we are.
 
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.
We passed the first one in 1776, a little thing called the U.S. articles of confederation, later revised into the U.S. constitution, and galvanized throughout the 18 and 1900's. You were saying?
 
I'm going to define Scientology, Mormon, and Christianity as crazy cults. HAHAHA, take that!
Oh, cheap shot! That's alright, we know you're joking, at least I hope so.
 
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.
Yes.... and however true that is, if it is ratified, the first time some parent forces their kid to go to church, some loon will scream that the parent is violating his rights under international law and demand that the US government, in accordance to the treaty, do something about it.
 
Oh, cheap shot! That's alright, we know you're joking, at least I hope so.

With a treaty like that and some of the crazies in this country; how long do you think it would be before that argument was actually made?
 
Yes.... and however true that is, if it is ratified, the first time some parent forces their kid to go to church, some loon will scream that the parent is violating his rights under international law and demand that the US government, in accordance to the treaty, do something about it.

And nobody will care, because it will be a stupid argument. Sounds similar to what happens already.
 
We passed the first one in 1776, a little thing called the U.S. articles of confederation, later revised into the U.S. constitution, and galvanized throughout the 18 and 1900's. You were saying?

He's not saying we've never ratified any human rights treaty, he's saying that we're the only ones who haven't ratified this one.
 
And nobody will care

How do you know? Are you able to predict the composition and legal atmosphere of the US years from now? Is there really a need for a law like this when we have a perfectly functional government of our own? I don't understand these apologetics and justifications. This law is an unnecessary usurpation of American sovereignty and the US can govern itself without input from the UN regardless of what some foreigners think.

because it will be a stupid argument. Sounds similar to what happens already.

Oh yes, because we all know the US is immune to stupid ideas...

I agree that this law, if enacted, would probably have little to no effect on a parent's ability to raise their children but that is nothing more than an assumption. In striking down this treaty we are preempting the possibility of abuse.

Moreover, we need to recognize the absolute redundancy and ineffectiveness of this treaty. Look who's signed it:

India: In India as many as 200,000 Nepali girls, many under the age of 14, have been sold into red-light districts. Nepalese women and girls, especially virgins, are favored in India because of their fair skin and young looks. Every year about 10,000 Nepalese girls, most between the age of nine and 16, are sold to brothels in India.

Philippines: In the Philippines, UNICEF estimated that there are 60,000 child prostitutes and many of the 200 brothels in the notorious Angeles City offer children for sex.

Thailand: In Thailand, NGOs have estimated that up to a third of prostitutes are children under 18.

Vietnam: A study by the International Labor Organization on child prostitution in Vietnam reported that incidence of children in prostitution is steadily increasing and children under 18 make up between 5 percent and 20 percent of prostitution depending on the geographical area.

Prostitution of children - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So what has this paper tiger accomplished? What incentive is there for a country to adhere to its laws? All these UN apologetics are laughable. Comparing the US with Somalia just because we refuse to sign some worthless piece of paper is preposterous hyperbole.

American children will be just fine without this BS treaty.
 
How do you know? Are you able to predict the composition and legal atmosphere of the US years from now? Is there really a need for a law like this when we have a perfectly functional government of our own? I don't understand these apologetics and justifications. This law is an unnecessary usurpation of American sovereignty and the US can govern itself without input from the UN regardless of what some foreigners think.



Oh yes, because we all know the US is immune to stupid ideas...

I agree that this law, if enacted, would probably have little to no effect on a parent's ability to raise their children but that is nothing more than an assumption. In striking down this treaty we are preempting the possibility of abuse.

So what has this paper tiger accomplished? What incentive is there for a country to adhere to its laws? All these UN apologetics are laughable. Comparing the US with Somalia just because we refuse to sign some worthless piece of paper is preposterous hyperbole.

American children will be just fine without this BS treaty.

To be clearer, we were active in helping to draft this treaty and even signed it way back in 1995.

The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention. It commented on nearly all of the articles, and proposed the original text of seven of them. Three of these come direct from the US constitution and were proposed by the administration of President Ronald Reagan. On 16 February 1995, Madeleine Albright, at the time the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the Convention.

This isn't exactly something being forced on us by the rest of the world.

The reason it wasn't ratified at the time is because the treaty bars signatories from executing people under 18. At the time, TX allowed the execution of people under 18, so to implement it would have overturned TX law. Now, however, our law has changed. The SC has held that minors cannot be executed in any state, so that objection no longer stands.

If anything is preposterous hyperbole, it's the reasons being given for not implementing it:

"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision," said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. "It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes."

lawl. The treaty does not create any enforceable rights, nor does it create standing for anyone to sue.

I personally don't give a **** if it gets ratified or not, because it's not like the decision will have a massive impact on our country either way. I just think that the arguments on each side are overblown.
 
Back
Top Bottom