Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Oz girl on April 16, 2007, 04:28:13 AM
-
Today I had a look at the UN declaration on the rights of the child. While I am aware that the USA did not sign on this, it may be worth noting that many regular "non abusive" schools and wilderness programs are potentially in breach of article 3 as well as articles 12 through 20 of this document. (even the ones which dont duct tape kids from head to foot)
For those of you who pen the occasional note to federal politicians it may be worth noting. Particularly given that Canada signed this declaration and they have a few programs as well.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm)
-
I understand what it says, and the specific language used. As a whole, the document is "nice" but close to meaningless. Nearly everything has an "out" or excuse counterpart. Kids are ot have freedom of expression (#13), but even before that kids have to be protected because of their physical and mental immaturity/lack of development. So, do you protect a kid from themself by banning certain expression that the "relevant authority" deems would foster bad development? Kids have a "right" to "the best" health care, but how is the government of an impoverished country going to provide the resources of the Mayo Clinic or St. Jude's hospital to every kid??
Get real. It seems clear that society has an obligation to "look out" for those who can't fully care for themselves - kids in this case, due to their incomplete development of whatever type. Also, the rights of a human don't magically appear at age 18, 14, 21 or any other. But don't take a "nice" but self-excusing document and turn it into a basis for condemnation, or even criticism. The issues on kids rights aren't so clear in the "Declaration" when you look at the exceptions/limitations/qualifications/outs, and getting into a legalistic/linguistic argument is pointless when simple things are at stake.
-
Too many business men make fortunes off the deliberate hurt and suffering of teenagers.
Too many parents like to spend their money paying out of state abusers to hurt their children.
Too many kids have parents who would pay someone else to hurt them, given the opportunity.
Too many lawyers will do anything for money and defend child abusers and programs.
-
For countries who have signed this it can be used as a tool to lobby with. When Australia was detaining asylum seekers including children this was used to excert considerable pressure. While it did not work at first Govt moderates in marginal seats eventually staged a revolt and the cruel and inhumane policy was phased out
While i take your point on issues like health and education the fact is deliberately denying kids access to healthcare by not getting a doctor of anyt sort because it is deemed they are faking is pretty much the same breach in impoverished western samoa as it would be in wealthy Australia.
Moreover article 13 on freedom of expression is about not being denied access to an open education or the right to freedom of thought more than it is a kids right to wear black lipstick etc. This is fairly fundamental to living in a free country
1. 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.
2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
I dont think articles 19 and 20 are that ill defined either. in fact i would say they are pretty fundamental. Particularly part 1 of article 19.
Article 19
1. 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.
2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.
Article 20
1. A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.
2. States Parties shall in accordance with their national laws ensure alternative care for such a child.
3. Such care could include, inter alia, foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law, adoption or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care of children. When considering solutions, due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child's upbringing and to the child's ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.
-
Thanks for the link!
I've read about it before and think that it would be a good universal benchmark for filing complaints when programs have no regs to speak of. We def need to ratify this....
-
Oh, please, as if the UN had any power or influence over anything to begin with.
-
The UN in and of itself does not. (Particularly with the US govt) However when a country signs on to something like this it means it is willing to be scritinised according to the declaration and it is saying that this is a standard that it aspires to for it citizens. The declaration is in this sense a handy Political tool. Given that Canada has several programs and it is a point of contention to many Americans that the US, (some of who *may* be in congress) did not sign this the relevant sections are worth quoting if lobbying.
It is no different to mentioning the potential embarrasment it can cause to religious leaders if abuse gets out about a program run in their faith's name.
-
GW Bush declined to present the treaty for ratification stating that he felt that the "human rights based approach" was not appropriate.
That ladies and gentlemen, scares the shit outta me.