| Defending the Rights of Children |
| Sponsored by the Greater Oklahoma City Chapter, UNA-USA HOME |
| A |
| A |
| A |
| United Nations Association of the United States of America Greater Oklahoma City Chapter P.O. Box 60856 Oklahoma City, OK 73146-0856 Contact Us |
| Created Nov. 7, 2009 Webmaster |
Commentary / Advocacy
Does the Oklahoma Legislature
Respect the Rights of Children?
Respect the Rights of Children?
| A |
November, 2009 -- In the 2009 legislative session, our State Senate concurred with a House resolution
opposing U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Why did our Legislature object
to the CRC? According to the text of the resolution (HCR 1033 download), there are several reasons.
For one thing, according to the opponents of the CRC: The Convention on the Rights of the Child
"...grants to children a legally enforceable right to leisure and many other particular 'rights' that are
contrary to American traditions and common sense."
Now, there are a couple of problems with this line of reasoning. First of all, the Convention on the
Rights of the Child does not "grant" any rights to anyone. Rather, it asserts that such rights exist as part
of each person's inherent dignity and worth as a human being. It requires
governments to recognize these rights and to offer appropriate protection
to children and their parents.
Additionally, the principles espoused in the Convention aren't in any way
opposed to the values of mainstream America. Instead, they reflect the
human family's recognition of the special status and vulnerability of
children. The CRC embodies the global opinion that children deserve
the protection of international law.
It is sad that the Resolution approved by our Legislature deliberately
distorted the purpose and goals of the treaty on children's rights. The
terms of the treaty were blatantly misconstrued by the Legislative
Resolution. Fear tactics were used to suggest that the United Nations
would take over the State of Oklahoma's budgetary process. The
Resolution raised the spectre of government bureaucrats
second-guessing the decisions made by parents.
In a lengthy diatribe against the treaty, the Legislative Resolution
sketched some of the supposed defects of the CRC. Using alarming
rhetoric to make their point, the authors of the Resolution described how
the CRC:
<> "Requires a level of socialized spending programs for the supposed
needs of children... that would bankrupt any American state."
<> "Gives the government review authority of a broad scope of parental
decisions without the necessity of proving that the parents are unfit or have harmed the child." And,
<> "Allows children and government to override reasonable and ordinary decisions concerning the
religious upbringing of the child."
If they had done their homework, though, our State Senators and State Representatives would have
realized the Resolution they approved last spring presented a seriously skewed image of the CRC. For
example, our Legislature would have known that:
<> The Convention on the Rights of the Child -- while it does require State Parties to implement
appropriate measures to protect the rights of children -- does not mandate any nation to undertake
initiatives that are beyond the "extent of their available resources." (Article 4).
<> In terms of honoring the proper role of parents, the CRC recognizes the "rights and duties" of
parents (Article 3), and it calls upon States Parties to likewise "respect the responsibilities, rights and
duties of parents...." (Article 5).
<> With regard to the religious upbringing of children, this subject is addressed in Article 14 of the
treaty. This article provides that, "States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion." And, "States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the
parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or
her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child."
Most fair-minded observers agree that the objectives of the CRC are completely congruent with
American values and traditions. But, the opponents of the treaty fail to appreciate it. They seem to be
too focused on their particular goals of demonizing the
United Nations and separating themselves from the
sentiments of global civil society.
To be fair, the resolution is correct in stating that the
Convention on the Rights of the Child *does* address a
child's right to leisure -- within the context of their right to
"rest" and "engage in play and recreational activities." But,
why does the Legislature see this as a reason to oppose
the Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Is our Legislature saying that children do not have a right to
play?
That's a good question to ask the next time you see your
State Senator or State Representative. Please tell them:
(1) You support the rights of children; and
(2) The Convention on the Rights of the Child is an effective instrument for protecting the rights of all
children everywhere.
Children deserve the support of everyone -- including our elected representatives in the Oklahoma
Legislature.
opposing U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Why did our Legislature object
to the CRC? According to the text of the resolution (HCR 1033 download), there are several reasons.
For one thing, according to the opponents of the CRC: The Convention on the Rights of the Child
"...grants to children a legally enforceable right to leisure and many other particular 'rights' that are
contrary to American traditions and common sense."
Now, there are a couple of problems with this line of reasoning. First of all, the Convention on the
Rights of the Child does not "grant" any rights to anyone. Rather, it asserts that such rights exist as part
of each person's inherent dignity and worth as a human being. It requires
governments to recognize these rights and to offer appropriate protection
to children and their parents.
Additionally, the principles espoused in the Convention aren't in any way
opposed to the values of mainstream America. Instead, they reflect the
human family's recognition of the special status and vulnerability of
children. The CRC embodies the global opinion that children deserve
the protection of international law.
It is sad that the Resolution approved by our Legislature deliberately
distorted the purpose and goals of the treaty on children's rights. The
terms of the treaty were blatantly misconstrued by the Legislative
Resolution. Fear tactics were used to suggest that the United Nations
would take over the State of Oklahoma's budgetary process. The
Resolution raised the spectre of government bureaucrats
second-guessing the decisions made by parents.
In a lengthy diatribe against the treaty, the Legislative Resolution
sketched some of the supposed defects of the CRC. Using alarming
rhetoric to make their point, the authors of the Resolution described how
the CRC:
<> "Requires a level of socialized spending programs for the supposed
needs of children... that would bankrupt any American state."
<> "Gives the government review authority of a broad scope of parental
decisions without the necessity of proving that the parents are unfit or have harmed the child." And,
<> "Allows children and government to override reasonable and ordinary decisions concerning the
religious upbringing of the child."
If they had done their homework, though, our State Senators and State Representatives would have
realized the Resolution they approved last spring presented a seriously skewed image of the CRC. For
example, our Legislature would have known that:
<> The Convention on the Rights of the Child -- while it does require State Parties to implement
appropriate measures to protect the rights of children -- does not mandate any nation to undertake
initiatives that are beyond the "extent of their available resources." (Article 4).
<> In terms of honoring the proper role of parents, the CRC recognizes the "rights and duties" of
parents (Article 3), and it calls upon States Parties to likewise "respect the responsibilities, rights and
duties of parents...." (Article 5).
<> With regard to the religious upbringing of children, this subject is addressed in Article 14 of the
treaty. This article provides that, "States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion." And, "States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the
parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or
her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child."
Most fair-minded observers agree that the objectives of the CRC are completely congruent with
American values and traditions. But, the opponents of the treaty fail to appreciate it. They seem to be
too focused on their particular goals of demonizing the
United Nations and separating themselves from the
sentiments of global civil society.
To be fair, the resolution is correct in stating that the
Convention on the Rights of the Child *does* address a
child's right to leisure -- within the context of their right to
"rest" and "engage in play and recreational activities." But,
why does the Legislature see this as a reason to oppose
the Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Is our Legislature saying that children do not have a right to
play?
That's a good question to ask the next time you see your
State Senator or State Representative. Please tell them:
(1) You support the rights of children; and
(2) The Convention on the Rights of the Child is an effective instrument for protecting the rights of all
children everywhere.
Children deserve the support of everyone -- including our elected representatives in the Oklahoma
Legislature.
In Oklahoma, we celebrate the diversity of cultures that
enrich our daily life. The Convention on the Rights of the
Child respects "the right of the child to preserve his or her
identity, including nationality, name and family relations as
recognized by law without unlawful interference."
enrich our daily life. The Convention on the Rights of the
Child respects "the right of the child to preserve his or her
identity, including nationality, name and family relations as
recognized by law without unlawful interference."
"States Parties shall respect the responsibilities,
rights and duties of parents...." (Article 5)
rights and duties of parents...." (Article 5)
fathers4kids.org
Read the full text of the Convention on the
RIghts of the Child ...
www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child ...
childrightscampaign.org
RIghts of the Child ...
www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child ...
childrightscampaign.org
| Who would say a child doesn't have a right to play? |
| It might surprise you, but the answer seems to be, "The Oklahoma Legislature." |
Commentary by Bill Bryant
Chapter Volunteer
Chapter Volunteer
| Recreational activities are important to the development of all children. Every Oklahoma school has a playground. Every town and city has parks so that children may run and laugh and play safely. The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes a child's right "to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child...." |
oklahomafarmreport.com
Photo by Gail Sloop
Given this twisted picture of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, is it any wonder that the Resolution
gained so much support among Oklahoma legislators?
After all, none of our Oklahoma representatives were
elected because of their awareness of the terms,
requirements, and guarantees of international law. I'd
be surprised if more than a handful of our legislators
actually bothered to read the text of the Convention.
I'm guessing that many of our State Senators and
Representatives voted for the Resolution simply so
they could move on to more pressing matters of state
business. From a pragmatic point of view, the
Resolution has no effect on the nature or substance of
the CRC. It is simply a statement of Legislative
opinion. Beyond that, the State Legislature has no real
authority to approve or reject treaties among nations.
Rights of the Child, is it any wonder that the Resolution
gained so much support among Oklahoma legislators?
After all, none of our Oklahoma representatives were
elected because of their awareness of the terms,
requirements, and guarantees of international law. I'd
be surprised if more than a handful of our legislators
actually bothered to read the text of the Convention.
I'm guessing that many of our State Senators and
Representatives voted for the Resolution simply so
they could move on to more pressing matters of state
business. From a pragmatic point of view, the
Resolution has no effect on the nature or substance of
the CRC. It is simply a statement of Legislative
opinion. Beyond that, the State Legislature has no real
authority to approve or reject treaties among nations.
| ThatsFit.com |
