In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Support Children’s Rights

Jill

Help ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. SOS Children’s Villages is trying to get 25,000 signatures on a petition that they will send to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. One hundred and ninety-two countries have ratified this treaty. The United States is not one of them.

The text of the convention is here (pdf).

7 thoughts on Support Children’s Rights

  1. What’s the US objection? It went into effect in 1990, so it’s gone through 3 presidents and 7 Congresses. What, exactly, do we not like about children?

  2. One of the reasons may be that Articles 7 & 9 imply that the fact that the father of your children has been sent to jail for raping you doesn’t end his entitlement to contact with his children. It can only be denied if this is ruled in the child’s best interests.

    Articles 13 & 17 could have interesting implications as well. I think the main reason may be that the convention has implictions for child custody when international borders come into it, and the US may wish to favour US citizens when these decisions are taken.

  3. Could be that they simply want to retain sovereignty, that they don’t think that pushing the relevant law into an international treaty makes sense? Also, that treaty has a tendency to impose a particularly left-slanted view which might rankle with the US electorate.

    I note that I myself object to article 28 particularly. Compulsory education and socialist provision of public schooling, built in as an unshakeable part of the treaty. There are good reasons to oppose both – this seeks to cut off any discussion with “it’s treaty law, democracy can’t touch it”. To blazes with that!

  4. Actually, democracy can touch it. That’s why the Senate has to ratify…

  5. I’m thinking that a lot of it goes contrary to the anti-Mexican immigration stuff that the administration is heavy on. Just an initial thought.

  6. And Julian, compulsory & social education came around for a pretty good set of reasons that can’t be shunted for theory’s sake.

  7. I’m late in returning comment here, but i wanted to respond to Lauren with another question:

    I’m thinking that a lot of it goes contrary to the anti-Mexican immigration stuff that the administration is heavy on. Just an initial thought.

    That makes sense for today, but why didn’t the first Bush or Clinton push for ratification? (OK, first Bush probably for the same reason, but Clinton…that man puzzlefies me more and more, and not usually in a good way.)

Comments are currently closed.