Beware of this Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

During my time at the United Nations, I’ve heard countless references to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I’ve come to see that while this document may look harmless and even uses language supportive of the family, it sows seeds of family erosion and destruction. Here are the basics of the Convention on the Rights of the Child every parent should know.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is an international treaty drafted at the United Nations in 1989 in the name of protecting the children of the world.

Many elements of the CRC have positive applications. For example, the preamble to the CRC states that “the family, (is) the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members,” and that “the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.” The CRC encourages “the production and dissemination of children's books,” refers to the benefits of breastfeeding, condemns the sale and trafficking of children, and cites a child’s “right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.”

However, the CRC also contains elements that are poised to undercut the rights of parents, strengthen the authority of the state in decisions regarding children, and grant children what could be considered unreasonable and even unsafe “rights.” For instance:

Article 13 states, “The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.”

Article 15 says, “States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly.”

Article 16 says, “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence.”

Article 17 says, “States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health.”

Granting children the right to “receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through any media of the child’s choice” in conjunction with “freedom of association” and a “right to privacy” diminishes or demolishes parents’ authority to limit their children’s access to people and materials they deem detrimental or dangerous to their children. It also leaves open to interpretation who gets to decide which sources promote children’s social, spiritual, moral, physical, or mental well-being.

Other concerning elements of the CRC include the following:

Article 24 says, “States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access” to “health care services.”

The health of children is vital. However, this statement implies that children have a right to access resources that are designated as “health care services.” This can include sexual and reproductive health services. The term “sexual and reproductive health and rights” is used repeatedly in UN initiatives and is often interpreted to include access to abortion services, comprehensive sexuality education programs (see StopCSE.org), and sexual information. Paired with a child’s right to “privacy,” this can mean that children have the right to access abortion, contraception, and sexual information without the knowledge or interference of their parents.

How could the CRC affect parents who don’t think engaging in sexual acts, getting abortions, or consuming pornography is good for their children? Or whose religious beliefs are not congruent with such actions?

Article 14 declares that children have “freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” and Article 24 says that “States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.”

If accessing sexual health services and information is deemed important for the health and well-being of children as it is throughout UN sexual educational materials (see StopCSE.org), then familial and religious attitudes and practices that seek to place limits on sexual engagement for children could be viewed as being “prejudicial to the health of children” and interfering with their freedom of religion. (For more on the children’s sexual rights movement and the United Nations, see here: InvincibleFamily.)

Article 28 says States Parties must “recognize the right of the child to education,” and “make primary education compulsory and available free to all.” Article 29 says that non-state entities can “establish and direct educational institutions” insofar as they “conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State.” These articles place the state squarely in charge of providing and directing education for all children and require that non-state schools conform to standards decreed by the state. This imperils the autonomy of non-state schools, homeschools, and other education entities. This is an egregious overreach into the education of the children of the world, which should be directed, chosen, and provided by parents.

While it includes nods to parental preferences and responsibilities, the CRC as a whole repeatedly establishes and imposes the preeminence of “State Parties” on essentially all elements in the life of a child. As a binding treaty, every country that ratifies the CRC is “legally bound to adhere to the principles” in it and is subject to international compliance monitoring.

The United States is the only UN member state that has declined to ratify the CRC, and for good reason. A clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states: “All treaties made…under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the constitution of the laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” Therefore, if the CRC is ratified, parental rights laws, education laws, or other laws that conflict with provisions in the CRC would be overridden according to this clause in the Constitution. Ratification of the CRC would represent a significant overhaul of laws affecting children, parents, and families in America.

For a closer look at the CRC and its relationship to the pedophile movement, click here: “If Pedophiles Ran the World”