Something momentous happened in our household last December: Our oldest daughter turned 13. Snarky teenage-hood, here we come!
Except something’s wrong. So far, Elder Daughter is still treating us with respect. She’s affectionate and obedient. She’s diligent in her schoolwork. She doesn’t smoke or do drugs. She dresses appropriately and has no Britney Spears posters on her walls.
No, of course she’s not perfect. What teen is? But under our tutelage she’s turning into a fine young lady. Last night when I asked her to do the dishes, all I got was a perfunctory protest before she settled in and did the dishes very nicely.
All this may change within two years.
No, it won’t be that Elder Daughter will be 15 and deeper into potential snarkiness. It will be that our parental rights will become null and void under an upcoming treaty called the “U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
Yes, the United Nations. That means that some stuffed shirt in Switzerland or Saudi Arabia will have the final say on how you raise, educate and discipline your kids. Neat, eh?
What a relief that after 233 years of independence, the United States is voluntarily ceding its sovereignty to the U.N. After all, they’re such experts on raising children over there in, say, Libya. And under international law, if this treaty is ratified, it overrides our state Constitutions. Isn’t that great?
What I find hilarious (in an evil sort of way) is that the United States has, until the 1960s or so, traditionally produced some of the best and brightest children on the planet. Our kids grew up to be responsible, hard-working citizens who loved family, God and country. Our nation rose to become a world leader because we raised our children right.
But now, “The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision,” says Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. [Emphasis added]
So, if you ask your kid to wash the dishes, all he has to do is call a “government worker” and get off scot-free. Because – get this – “children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.” Wow! Where can I get a deal like that?
And this doesn’t even begin to address mandatory sex education (public school style) and “health services” (wink wink) – all without parental authorization, of course.
And spanking? Ha! Don’t make me laugh. Naturally “the treaty clearly bans all corporal punishment, including spanking by parents. Congress would have both the duty as well as the power to implement legislation which directly imposes legal sanctions against parents to spank their children. Spanking could be a federal crime if the CRC is ratified.”
According to Farris, “The two most important principles of the CRC are the ‘best interest of the child’ principle and ‘the child’s right of participation’ in all relevant matters.”
Rights of participation. When I ask my daughter to do the dishes, the “asking” is just a courtesy. There is no room for negotiation. She has no “rights of participation” in the decision. She WILL do the dishes. Besides the fact that the dishes need washing, we all know household chores are critical for a child’s moral and ethical development. Duh.
So what happens if you think washing dishes is in your teenager’s “best interest,” but the teenager disagrees? What if she complains to a government worker that she had no “right of participation” in the decision?
Taken to its logical (and legal) conclusion, it means your teen can appeal to the courts that she shouldn’t have to do the dishes. If the courts decide in her favor, then you can’t force your teen to wash dishes or she may be removed from your custody.
The biggest areas of potential conflict, understandably, are the issues of education and religious instruction. If your child decides he no longer wants to be homeschooled and wants to attend the local public school, the decision will likely come down in his favor.
But let’s say your child hates school and begs you to homeschool him, but you don’t want to. What then? Will you be “forced” to homeschool your child, or risk having him removed from your custody if you refuse? Of course not. “The child’s wishes seem to get special attention only when the parents want something different from the wishes of the government,” says Farris. In other words, the government can override your decisions on what is in your child’s best interest without proof of abuse, neglect, or harm.
Children will have a legally enforceable right to complain about anything they wish. Once rebellious teenagers get wind of this, how many could resist using it to the full capacity of the law? Chaos will become the norm. Wonderful!
When I explained something about the CRC to our daughters, my 10-year-old said, “But children don’t know what’s best for them!”
So, if a 10-year-old gets it, why not liberals?
I know this comes as a surprise to Hillary and Nancy, but children are not adults. They do not have the mental maturity, experience, and self-discipline that adults have. At 18 they are legally free to ruin their own lives, but until then parents should have the ultimate authority on the upbringing of their children unless it can be demonstrated the children are being abused, neglected, or otherwise harmed.
And here’s the thing: The CRC will get passed. With pinhead liberals and RINO’s in power, it’s inevitable.
So what’s the solution?
There is a proposal called the Parental Rights Amendment. This is a constitutional amendment, meaning it is neither a fast nor easy process – but it’s the only thing that will preserve our rights. We have no time to lose.
Meanwhile, Elder Daughter, get to work. There are dishes to wash.
Note: Here is a detailed legal analysis of the CRC, from which all unlinked quotes in this column originate. It is worth reading from top to bottom.