On November 20th, 193 countries will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the most rapidly and comprehensively ratified treaty in history of the world – The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Two countries, however, will sadly miss out – Somalia and The United States of America. Embarrassingly, the US stands with Somalia as the only two countries on the planet that have not ratified the CRC. What’s even more embarrassing is that Somalia has an excuse. Since a Somali government did not exist at the time of ratification, the country literally could not ratify the treaty.
Throughout history and still today, many societies believe that children are without rights, likening children to property, such as cattle or dogs. The CRC is a legally binding, international treaty that recognizes basic human rights for children, such as the right to survival and the right to be free from abuse and exploitation. Since ratification, the CRC has been integral in helping countries and international organizations shape new laws that protect children from horrors like forced conscription, child labor, disease, abuse, and more. While many of the world’s children still suffer enormously at the hands of adults, the CRC stands as a symbol of hope and a guide towards positive changes for the protection of children worldwide.
How disgraceful that for 20 years, the United States has essentially stood alone as an opponent of a treaty designed to recognize the human rights of children. How pitiable that US critics of the CRC point to the potential loss of US sovereignty as their primary reason to reject a treaty that aims to protect the lives of children. How highly misguided of others to seriously believe that the CRC is anti-American and anti-family! How can a treaty, which recognizes a child’s right to live freely, without torment or neglect, be considered anti-family? True, a parent’s right to raise their child as they see fit is protected by the Constitution. However, I have yet to see concrete evidence of how the CRC, which promotes children’s rights, would undermine parents’ rights? Do critics actually want us to believe that the two notions are mutually exclusive?
President Obama and emerging others, such as child rights champion Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), don’t seem to believe this either. Earlier this year, the Obama Administration voiced its dedication to move human rights back to the front burner of American political debate, and specifically mentioned the CRC. This year, change was promised to us all, including children. In keeping with this promise, it is high time for the US to take substantive steps towards ratification of the CRC before our nation goes down in history as the only democracy in the world that denies the concept of children’s human rights.
Front page photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/ / CC BY-NC 2.0
Popularity: 1% [?]
I never heard of CRC prior to this post. As a school counselor, I’m not exactly sure what it would mean for the school, but if it holds parents more accountable for their actions or lack of action towards their child’s well-being, I’m all for it. Yes, parents have a right to privacy and to raise their children as they see fit, but sometimes they’re flat out wrong and/or lazy and our sophisticated nation should be able to point that out! Too many times parents do not follow-up on recommendations given by the school, and somehow the schools are blamed for it! Parents are NOT held accountable – schools are, not properly, but we are – and every news organization blames us first instead of questioning dead-beat parents. Why?? Because it’s a parent’s right. Right to what – leave your kid in another state with neighbors/relatives for “a better life” while they see them once a week – refuse mental health services because of ridiculous biases or b/c they can’t take them b/c they only come home on Sundays – deny children the right to speak confidentially with their school counselor – and that’s just a sample list. The United States should be ashamed to deny accountability of parents – every single person who deals with children in the US is mandated to protect them and held accountable for every interaction – except their parents – something’s not quite right there.
Thank you for your response. Based upon your comment, here are a few Articles from the CRC that could one day be applicable to your concerns.
In response to a parent’s decision to deny services to their child based upon beliefs or biases, See Art. 2.2.
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.
In response to denying children the right to speak confidently to their school counselor, See Art. 12
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
In response to concerns that parents are not often held accountable for the upbringing of their child, and that the responsibility often falls on the state, See Art. 18.1.
States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.
In response to schools providing recommendations for protecting the child’s best interests but not receiving the parents’ support, See Art. 19.1.
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.
Also See Art. 28.2.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.
While the CRC provides provisions to ensure the rights of children are not violated, the treaty still recognizes and respects the role of parents. Art. 5 states,
States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.
To read the CRC it its entirety, visit http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm.