The U.N Convention on the Rights of the Child is the latest in a line of international agreements on the human rights of children and has been ratified by every member of the United Nations with the exception of Somalia and the United States. Somalia hasn’t refused to ratify the treaty, they’ve just not had the institutions in place to make treaty ratification a reality. In the US, the Convention has met staunch opposition from the right where opponents argue that it strips away parental rights, conflicts with the US Constitution and is generally bad news. So what does the heinous piece of international law say?
Well of course you can read it here and draw your own conclusions. But here’s my summary.
Children have rights to life, identity, nationality, knowledge of and care by hir parents, self-expression, thought, conscience, religion, free association, privacy, access to health care, access to resources to allow children with disabilities to fully participate in the community, education, and leisure.
Signatory governments have obligations to protect children from neglect and abuse as well as to provide financial, development, and psychological support.
The main objections (that I’ve seen) are coming primarily from groups that oppose six key concepts which I believe almost all of us would agree to support.
1. Children have the right to privacy. Objection: Abortion.
2. Children have the right to freedom of conscience, religion, and expression. Objection: Children are not allowed to think or express thoughts that their parents have not pre-approved.
3. Children have the right to freedom of assembly. Objection: Gangs!
4. Children have the right to an education. Objection: Sex education!*
5. Children may not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment which includes the imposition of the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole. Objection: Sovereignty!
6. Parents and guardians should consider the best interests of children. Objection: Parental Rights!
I not sure any reasonable reading of the Convention would by necessity lead to these outcomes, but – to be honest – I’d be thrilled if it did, except for the gangs of course.
But one objection, and the one most likely to keep the US from ratifying this treaty, is probably controversial even amongst the Feministe Commentariat.
Article 19 provides that “States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.”
Some have read this provision as outlawing all forms of corporal punishment including spankings.
That’s right spankings. I went there.
But before we all start typing in caps, I want to see if its possible to have this conversation in a way that focuses on the institutional effects of these objections on children and how our objections reflect our values.
What does it say about how USians value children we are unwilling to take measures to protect them from “all forms of physical or mental violence”?
What does it say about whether we regard children as fully human that the fundamental rights granted to all people under the U.S. Constitution – the rights to privacy and to freedom of religion, assembly and expression – are explicitly denied to children?
What does it say about the power dynamic between parents and children that that we object to the idea that parents should be required to act in the best interests of their children?
In the end, I think it means that for our lip service to the idea that children are our top priority, when the rubber hits the road – as a society – our desire to control children is far greater than our desire to protect them or our respect for their humanity.
——
*Home school advocates argue that these provisions would prohibit home schooling and would mandate sex education including potentially at religious schools. In my opinion home schooling or alternative communities schools can be wonderful alternatives to an educational system that fails far too many students. So I would definitely support a “reservation” (essentially a yes, but we are going to do X regardless of whether its interpreted to conflict with the Convention) that allows for the continuation of those methods of providing education. What do you think?
——
With the understanding that this is often a fraught conversation, I would like to make a few special *requests*. First, please try to listen without reflexive defensiveness. Second, I know that parents are under a lot of pressure to be a “good” parent, and often a “good” parent is defined by kyriarchal norms. At the same time, there is another vector of oppression here and this isn’t about you personally or your children specifically. Rather its about whether children as a class, including those that don’t have caring parents to protect them, deserve the protection of broader society. Finally, please try not to make this thread about what one or another parent does wrong. If we want to talk about parenting techniques, I will be happy to open another thread, but I’d like to center children in this thread…not just one or two of them, but children as a class.