Homeschooling and the UN

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

For those who may have thought that homeschooling would not be impacted by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child I would submit the latest news from Europe.

 

Although proposed actions in Britain cited the Convention it seems that Sweden has taken it a step further. As this is an international treaty the US would be signing, it would, presumably, be subject to international precedent.

 

From HSLDA on the case of Dominic Johannson--

 

[Michael] Donnelly continued, “HSLDA is gravely concerned about this case as it represents what can happen to other families who might wish to homeschool their children. Furthermore, in response to inquiries from HSLDA, Swedish authorities have cited the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to explain and defend their actions. If the U.S. were to ever ratify this treaty, then state-sponsored kidnapping could occur here. Every homeschooler would be at risk. Such treatment of families and children is inhumane and inconsistent with a reasonable understanding of basic human rights."

[Parrothead]

I think just about every aspect of parenting could some way fall under the UN ROC treaty. In countries which this treaty has been ratified the children do not belong to the parents any more. They are property of the state.

[MyBlueLobsters]

So scary. I think it is dangerous to think "Well that wouldn't happen here in the US" Um, why? What would stop them for doing this too? I think many of us have a false security because we live in the USA. That is a dangerous comfort to rely on. I pray for this family. What a horrible place they must be in right now.

[hornblower]

Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. You'd think I'd be downtrodden & having my rights infringed all the time.

 

And yet, I live in a place which has far more liberal homeschooling laws than many of you in the US enjoy.

 

I report to nobody. There is no mandatory testing. No supervision.

 

I fill out a one page form in September giving my name, address, the child's name & birthdate. That's IT.

 

 

 

Attempts to curtail homeschooling & parental rights in Europe have IMO to do with

a) unionized teachers seeking to protect their turf (esp in countries with rapidly falling birth rates, necessitating cut backs & sometimes closures in schools)

and

b) a social tension which is related to immigration. Europe is facing significant immigration esp from the Middle East & Nortern Africa and there is considerable concern about cultural cohesiveness & struggles with welcoming & integrating immigrants who don't necessarily share the small "L" liberal ideals which arose during the Enlightenment

 

There are several fascinating recently published books (last couple years) about how Europe as a whole is struggling with this. I think their history as colonizing countries is not preparing them well for being colonized. We struggle with these issues here as well, of course, but it is quite different in Europe.

[pqr]

Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. You'd think I'd be downtrodden & having my rights infringed all the time.

 

And yet, I live in a place which has far more liberal homeschooling laws than many of you in the US enjoy.

 

I report to nobody. There is no mandatory testing. No supervision.

 

I fill out a one page form in September giving my name, address, the child's name & birthdate. That's IT.

 

 

 

Attempts to curtail homeschooling & parental rights in Europe have IMO to do with

a) unionized teachers seeking to protect their turf (esp in countries with rapidly falling birth rates, necessitating cut backs & sometimes closures in schools)

and

b) a social tension which is related to immigration. Europe is facing significant immigration esp from the Middle East & Nortern Africa and there is considerable concern about cultural cohesiveness & struggles with welcoming & integrating immigrants who don't necessarily share the small "L" liberal ideals which arose during the Enlightenment

 

There are several fascinating recently published books (last couple years) about how Europe as a whole is struggling with this. I think their history as colonizing countries is not preparing them well for being colonized. We struggle with these issues here as well, of course, but it is quite different in Europe.

 

Simply because the Canadians do not use the convention in this manner does not mean that others would not. If the convention can be interpreted to limit HSing then it is dangerous.

[WishboneDawn]

Simply because the Canadians do not use the convention in this manner does not mean that others would not. If the convention can be interpreted to limit HSing then it is dangerous.

 

The fact that there are countries that have ratified the treaty and yet manage to keep homeschooling freedoms intact points to the fact that part of the problem may be the countries (Sweden for instance) rather then the convention.

 

But another part of the problem in all this, and probably even more troubling, is not truly the convention. If the HSDLA were on the ball and really and wholey concerned with homeschooling freedoms it could cite Article 29, section 2 right back at the Swedish government;

 

2. No part of the present article or article 28 shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institution

 

The problem however is that the HSLDA has ties to forces (dominion theology) that have a problem with the UN period and to use the treaty to argue FOR the rights of homeschoolers would contradict those ideals.

 

A powerful tool gets ignored. Homeschoolers are left without the advocacy they truly need because the ultimate concern of the HSLDA is one of religion and not homeschooling rights.

[LibraryLover]

HSLDA I wish we had a vomiting smilie.

[8circles]

The problem however is that the HSLDA has ties to forces (dominion theology) that have a problem with the UN period and to use the treaty to argue FOR the rights of homeschoolers would contradict those ideals.

 

 

I know nothing about HSLDA & am not a member. I am not a believer in Dominion Theology at all. Could you point me in the right direction to get more info about this?

 

Thanks.

[Mrs Mungo]

The fact that there are countries that have ratified the treaty and yet manage to keep homeschooling freedoms intact points to the fact that part of the problem may be the countries (Sweden for instance) rather then the convention.

 

But another part of the problem in all this, and probably even more troubling, is not truly the convention. If the HSDLA were on the ball and really and wholey concerned with homeschooling freedoms it could cite Article 29, section 2 right back at the Swedish government;

 

 

 

The problem however is that the HSLDA has ties to forces (dominion theology) that have a problem with the UN period and to use the treaty to argue FOR the rights of homeschoolers would contradict those ideals.

 

A powerful tool gets ignored. Homeschoolers are left without the advocacy they truly need because the ultimate concern of the HSLDA is one of religion and not homeschooling rights.

 

:iagree: AND to say that any part of the UN CRC would have any affect on US law is a complete misrepresentation of how US law works.

 

The text of a treaty does not become law in the US, as it does in many other nations. Therefore, the US usually passes laws to line up with a treaty *before* it is ratified. Due to the supremacy clause, no treaty *ever* supersedes the Constitution. Again, the US, historically, has never treated a ratified treaty as law. There are several examples of treaties, ratified by the US, that have not been made law. The US can also reject or add clarification on specific provisions. A non-self executing delcaration could be made, meaning that it doesn't become the law of the land, the way treaties generally do. It would not be the first time this was done with a US treaty.

 

Many of the bits of the CRC that certain groups object to are the bits added by Reagan and Bush (the first Bush) in order to reflect the rights held by children under the Constitution (children *do* have rights under the Constitution). The treaty emphasizes parental rights, not just in Article 29 but in other Articles as well, as shown by this quote from the report on the UN CRC from the State Department:

"States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents ... to provide ... appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.†The Convention also states that children have the right to know and be cared for by their parents, and recognizes that the “rights and duties†of parents should be taken into account when States Parties seek to ensure

a child’s well-being."

 

Many of the provisions that claim to undermine parental authority are actually seeking to protect children from the *state*, not their parents. Clarifying language could be added to this, if needed. Many other countries have added clarifications to parts of the CRC that were intentionally left vague. For example, China, France and other countries added reservations to Article 6 to clarify that it would not interfere with their own laws and policies regarding abortion.

 

The *real* main issue with the US ratifying the treaty (and the reason it hasn't yet been submitted by review, by any administration) is not a loss of individual rights but a blurring of the division between federal and state rights and responsibilities.

 

The main issue with not ratifying the treaty? Well, it's just us and Somalia. It doesn't really put us in a good light when it comes to advocating for children's rights whether you're talking child slavery, child prostitution, child labor or anything.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. You'd think I'd be downtrodden & having my rights infringed all the time.

 

Please remember that education in Canada is a provincial issue. The fact that you are not suffering from the UN convention on the Rights of the Child in your province does not mean it's the same everywhere in Canada.

In fact, it has been used in Quebec already to "protect" kids from their parents' religion. There's talk (nothing serious but it shows the mindset) in papers about not allowing parents to talk about anything religious before the kids are 16yo. You'll find that in open letters, so really it's not law or law-to-be, but it's indicative of how people think.

 

Homeschooling here is legal, but the school boards don't want you to deviate from the provincial curriculum at all, which includes a course from 1st grade to grade 11 about religions of the world, teaching that they're all equivalent, all the same, and all stand in the way of a unified society. After grade 11, the kids can only come to one conclusion, it's that religions are a bane on society. Parents have protested against this mandatory course, it was deemed they had no rights to be against this course.

[hornblower]

Please remember that education in Canada is a provincial issue.

 

LOL - I have a degree in Political Science. Canadian constitutional law is not my realm of expertise but I certainly have a baseline knowledge of it.

 

The fact that you are not suffering from the UN convention on the Rights of the Child in your province does not mean it's the same everywhere in Canada.

 

Yes, I'm aware of that. But I think this again shows how much scope for interpretation there is within this document. BC has been publicly (& rightly) harangued for not doing anywhere near enough to alleviate child poverty, but nobody is jumping up and down saying a parent's rights to homeschool need to be curtailed.

 

which includes a course from 1st grade to grade 11 about religions of the world, teaching that they're all equivalent, all the same, and all stand in the way of a unified society. After grade 11, the kids can only come to one conclusion, it's that religions are a bane on society.

 

Hmmm. Well it's hard for me to be upset about this as I agree with the conclusion. :D But I see your point. Quebec though is a very strange place though, you've got to admit. The sign laws, the schooling laws - these all would still be there regardless of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

 

My point was & is that limits on homeschooling or parental rights have little to do with the UN and more to do with the regional societal tensions that result when you no longer have a homogenous population and a common set of values. People with these concerns latch on to all sorts of legislative footholds to gain purchase with their own agendas.

Edited January 7, 2010 by hornblower

[WishboneDawn]

I know nothing about HSLDA & am not a member. I am not a believer in Dominion Theology at all. Could you point me in the right direction to get more info about this?

 

Thanks.

 

Yup.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1023410/posts

 

This is an older but very thorough article: http://salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/10/02/homeschooling_battle/index.html

[8circles]

Yup.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1023410/posts

 

This is an older but very thorough article: http://salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/10/02/homeschooling_battle/index.html

 

Thanks. :)

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

UNICEF pretty much lays out the obligation of each nation as they enter into the convention. Furthermore, as we do not have a federal education mandate the convention would have the effect, in the eyes of the world, of creating one. As each state, would, in effect be held to the terms of the treaty. The treaty, as they explain it, clearly supercedes national laws. Therefore, by ratifying the Convention we would be, de facto, agreeing to it superceding our laws. If the Convention is higher than the Constitution then precedents set by countries like Sweden would carry much weight in determining what is allowable with regard to homeschooling and children's rights.

 

From UNICEF (website):

International human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols are negotiated among United Nations Member States and are legally binding on the individual States that become parties to the instrument. There are two ways for a State to become a party: by signature and ratification or by accession.

In ratifying the Convention or an Optional Protocol, a State accepts an obligation to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the enumerated rights—including by adopting or changing laws and policies that implement the provisions of the Convention or Protocol.

The Convention places equal emphasis on all of the rights for children. There is no such thing as a 'small' right and no hierarchy of human rights. These rights are indivisible and interrelated, with a focus on the child as a whole. Governmental decisions with regard to any one right must be made in the light of all the other rights in the Convention.

Governments that ratify the Convention or one of its Optional Protocols must report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the body of experts charged with monitoring States' implementation of the Convention and Optional Protocols. These reports outline the situation of children in the country and explain the measures taken by the State to realize their rights. In its reviews of States’ reports, the Committee urges all levels of government to use the Convention as a guide in policymaking and implementation. And because the protection of human rights is by nature a permanent and endless process, there is always room for improvement.

 

[pqr]

to say that any part of the UN CRC would have any affect on US law is a complete misrepresentation of how US law works.

 

The text of a treaty does not become law in the US, as it does in many other nations. Therefore, the US usually passes laws to line up with a treaty *before* it is ratified. Due to the supremacy clause, no treaty *ever* supersedes the Constitution. Again, the US, historically, has never treated a ratified treaty as law. There are several examples of treaties, ratified by the US, that have not been made law. The US can also reject or add clarification on specific provisions. A non-self executing delcaration could be made, meaning that it doesn't become the law of the land, the way treaties generally do. It would not be the first time this was done with a US treaty..

 

Usually is not good enough when we are talking about our rights. Do any of us really trust our rights to "usually"?

 

Artlicle VI of the US Constitution:

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

 

United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942) SUPREME COURT RULING

 

18. State law must yield when it is inconsistent with or impairs the policy or provisions of a treaty or of an international compact or agreement. P. 315 U. S. 230.

20. Power over external affairs is not shared by the States; it is vested exclusively in the National Government. P. 315 U. S. 233.

 

 

 

Many of the provisions that claim to undermine parental authority are actually seeking to protect children from the *state*, not their parents. Clarifying language could be added to this, if needed....

.

 

Double speak. Some provisions may be seen to "protect" children but at the same time they may undermine parental authority.

 

 

 

The main issue with not ratifying the treaty? Well, it's just us and Somalia. It doesn't really put us in a good light when it comes to advocating for children's rights whether you're talking child slavery, child prostitution, child labor or anything.

 

If we need a UN Treaty to put us in a "good light," that is a sad indictment. What the convention does is limit our rights.

 

 

Finally let us not forget the Bricker Amendment.

 

Sen John Bricker Proposed Amendment to the Constitution, considered by the Senate in 1953–54, declared that no treaty could be made by the United States that conflicted with the Constitution. The amendment was opposed by Eisenhower.

[Mrs Mungo]

UNICEF pretty much lays out the obligation of each nation as they enter into the convention. Furthermore, as we do not have a federal education mandate the convention would have the effect, in the eyes of the world, of creating one. As each state, would, in effect be held to the terms of the treaty. The treaty, as they explain it, clearly supercedes national laws. Therefore, by ratifying the Convention we would be, de facto, agreeing to it superceding our laws. If the Convention is higher than the Constitution then precedents set by countries like Sweden would carry much weight in determining what is allowable with regard to homeschooling and children's rights.

 

From UNICEF (website):

 

Again, the supremacy clause makes it impossible for anything to be higher than the Constitution as far as US law goes. Again, usually when the US ratifies a treaty it insures state laws are aligned with the treaty so that federal law does not take precedent (currently, most state laws already line up with this treaty). Again, other countries added notes that certain provisions (such as Article 6) did not interfere with existing laws in that country. There are all obstacles that can be prevented.

 

As far as the rest, the US has *already ratified* the 2 optional provisions, please explain how this has negatively impacted the US, state law or individual rights.

[Mrs Mungo]

Usually is not good enough when we are talking about our rights. Do any of us really trust our rights to "usually"?

 

Artlicle VI of the US Constitution:

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/supremacy-clause

 

"It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power." In McCullouch v. Maryland it was decided that it also meant that states cannot exercise power over the federal government.

 

I outright stated that the main problem with the treaty (as it stands) is that it could be seen as interfering with state rights. Insuring that state laws lined up with the treaty ahead of time would completely avoid that issue.

 

Double speak. Some provisions may be seen to "protect" children but at the same time they may undermine parental authority.

 

Again, as I stated, clarifying language could easily be added by the US to those provisions. Other countries have added such language.

 

If we need a UN Treaty to put us in a "good light," that is a sad indictment. What the convention does is limit our rights.

 

I disagree that it would necessarily limit our rights.

 

 

Finally let us not forget the Bricker Amendment.

 

Sen John Bricker Proposed Amendment to the Constitution, considered by the Senate in 1953–54, declared that no treaty could be made by the United States that conflicted with the Constitution. The amendment was opposed by Eisenhower.

 

Human rights were a major concern after WWII. I completely understand why President (and General) Eisenhower would oppose those who wanted the US to return to isolationism. At that time many believed *something* had to be done to prevent such massive violations of human rights as occurred during WWII. Would you disagree?

 

Many of the limits that the Bricker Amendment would have accomplished have been accomplished in other ways such as Seery v. the United States and Reid v. Covert.

[Spy Car]

I'm shocked (shocked) that the HSLDA has come out against universal human rights and the UN.

 

Where's the thread about why people don't like this fundamentalist-conservative political action organization?

 

Blech! :ack2:

 

Bill

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Again, the supremacy clause makes it impossible for anything to be higher than the Constitution as far as US law goes. Again, usually when the US ratifies a treaty it insures state laws are aligned with the treaty so that federal law does not take precedent (currently, most state laws already line up with this treaty). Again, other countries added notes that certain provisions (such as Article 6) did not interfere with existing laws in that country. There are all obstacles that can be prevented.

 

As far as the rest, the US has *already ratified* the 2 optional provisions, please explain how this has negatively impacted the US, state law or individual rights.

 

 

In the past, yes, the Constitution has been considered the supreme law-above treaties and international agreements. Yet this convention requires exactly the opposite of its members. It requires that individual States change their laws (in our case state or federal) to bring them in line with the Convention. There is potentially no reason why a similar argument could not be used in the US were we to ratify this convention.

 

Article 4

 

States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

What is particularly disturbing is that, in this case, Sweden has clearly violated the following Articles of the Convention in favor of deciding that a child with untreated cavities, who's parents have chosen not to vaccinate him, and who is homeschooled is actually being neglected/abused. The officials there seemed to feel that it was their obligation to detain the family as they were departing the country and take the child under government protection. And the reason they gave was that it was their obligation under the convention to do this-which has apparently been upheld by their court system.

 

Article 5

 

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.

 

Article 10

 

1. In accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family.

 

Article 14

 

1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2. 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.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

 

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I'm shocked (shocked) that the HSLDA has come out against universal human rights and the UN.

 

Where's the thread about why people don't like this fundamentalist-conservative political action organization?

 

Blech! :ack2:

 

Bill

 

The point isn't what position HSLDA holds on this issue. They just had one of the clearest discussions on the point and rather than assert what happened in Sweden it seemed easier to give you a resource to go to. Because of their legal involvement in this case they are issuing most of the press releases in the US concerning the case. Therefore most news reports do lead back to them. Rather than debate HSLDA it seemed easier just to acknowledge that they were one of the main sources of the news reports.

[pqr]

http://www.answers.com/topic/supremacy-clause

 

"It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power." In McCullouch v. Maryland it was decided that it also meant that states cannot exercise power over the federal government.

 

 

 

 

 

From your own link

The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the US Constitution, article VI, paragraph 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land"

 

If a treaty does not become the law of the land, please explain why when the United States ultimately ratified the U.N.'s Genocide Convention in 1986. The Convention was signed with reservations which prevented the law being enacted if it contradicted the constitution. Surely if Article VI were so cut and dry this would not have been necessary.

 

 

 

Again, as I stated, clarifying language could easily be added by the US to those provisions. Other countries have added such language.

 

 

 

Could easily???? but has it been done?

 

 

I disagree that it would necessarily limit our rights.

 

 

 

Why not state that it would not? Rather wishy washy comment isn't it?

 

Human rights were a major concern after WWII. I completely understand why President (and General) Eisenhower would oppose those who wanted the US to return to isolationism. At that time many believed *something* had to be done to prevent such massive violations of human rights as occurred during WWII. Would you disagree?

 

.

 

Something had to be done, I agree, but giving up US freedoms.....NO

[hornblower]

I'm curious about why (or maybe the right question is whether) people get so upset by this, but seem unworried about things like the Patriot Act. I wonder whether the bigger dangers aren't the home-made ones, and not these general international covenants.

 

Not trying to stir the pot - genuinely curious. Are people who are very worried about the UN, also generally against the various domestic anti-terror legislations?

[pqr]

I'm curious about why (or maybe the right question is whether) people get so upset by this, but seem unworried about things like the Patriot Act. I wonder whether the bigger dangers aren't the home-made ones, and not these general international covenants.

 

Not trying to stir the pot - genuinely curious. Are people who are very worried about the UN, also generally against the various domestic anti-terror legislations?

Frequently....yes.

[Mrs Mungo]

From your own link

The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the US Constitution, article VI, paragraph 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land"

 

If a treaty does not become the law of the land, please explain why when the United States ultimately ratified the U.N.'s Genocide Convention in 1986. The Convention was signed with reservations which prevented the law being enacted if it contradicted the constitution. Surely if Article VI were so cut and dry this would not have been necessary.

 

Being cut and dry within the US and being cut and dry according to international law are two different things. But, there you go, one example of a treaty ratified with reservations, as others have been.

 

 

Could easily???? but has it been done?

 

There's too much political junk blowing around. If our Congress would stop acting like its only job is to help it's football team win and work together we'd all be better off, imo.

 

 

Why not state that it would not? Rather wishy washy comment isn't it?

 

No. I can see how it could be interpreted one way. I can see how that could be prevented.

 

Something had to be done, I agree, but giving up US freedoms.....NO

 

If not some agreement on international codes then what?

[Slartibartfast]

The HSLDA is not an organization I will support.

[Mama Lynx]

And we all know that however Canada handles things, the U.S. will, of course, follow suit.

 

I'm glad you've had such a positive experience. Some of us in the States know that we do have good cause to be wary. There *are* those who would like to do away with homeschooling in the U.S.

 

Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. You'd think I'd be downtrodden & having my rights infringed all the time.

 

And yet, I live in a place which has far more liberal homeschooling laws than many of you in the US enjoy.

 

I report to nobody. There is no mandatory testing. No supervision.

 

I fill out a one page form in September giving my name, address, the child's name & birthdate. That's IT.

 

 

 

Attempts to curtail homeschooling & parental rights in Europe have IMO to do with

a) unionized teachers seeking to protect their turf (esp in countries with rapidly falling birth rates, necessitating cut backs & sometimes closures in schools)

and

b) a social tension which is related to immigration. Europe is facing significant immigration esp from the Middle East & Nortern Africa and there is considerable concern about cultural cohesiveness & struggles with welcoming & integrating immigrants who don't necessarily share the small "L" liberal ideals which arose during the Enlightenment

 

There are several fascinating recently published books (last couple years) about how Europe as a whole is struggling with this. I think their history as colonizing countries is not preparing them well for being colonized. We struggle with these issues here as well, of course, but it is quite different in Europe.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

The HSLDA is not an organization I will support.

 

The discussion here has nothing to do with that organization other than that they are the main source of news in the US. As I don't read Swedish I must rely on English sources. The discussion is concerning the UN Convention and its potential repercussions in the US. Rabbit trails or side line debates will not serve to clarify the issue.

[pqr]

Being cut and dry within the US and being cut and dry according to international law are two different things. But, there you go, one example of a treaty ratified with reservations, as others have been.

 

Exactly, hence my real concerns. Ambiguity is not something we can afford. As we now agree that there is this ambiguity and as I am certain we agree that we already have laws against child prostitution etc perhaps you could explain the necessity of further muddying our rights by introducing the Convention. If your only argument is that we can then be in lockstep with other nations, I am afraid that that is (to me) not good enough.

 

There's too much political junk blowing around. If our Congress would stop acting like its only job is to help it's football team win and work together we'd all be better off, imo.

 

 

 

 

Given this political junk why do you think that Congress would actually ensure the necessary protections of our rights?

 

 

 

Nobody has yet shown the necessity of US entry into the convention. At worst it is a dangerous attack on our rights and best a touchy feely feel good measure. Why do we need this? If the US is standing alone, so be it. Far better to be alone and right than part of a group and wrong.

[Mrs Mungo]

pqr, I could argue all day...if it were not for the fact I have to go get an mri on my bum knee, after finishing our science experiment. Later!

[pqr]

pqr, I could argue all day...if it were not for the fact I have to go get an mri on my bum knee, after finishing our science experiment. Later!

 

 

Hope it works out well on your knee.

 

I still see no need for this convention and think it is a risk not worth taking.

[Slartibartfast]

The discussion here has nothing to do with that organization other than that they are the main source of news in the US. As I don't read Swedish I must rely on English sources. The discussion is concerning the UN Convention and its potential repercussions in the US. Rabbit trails or side line debates will not serve to clarify the issue.

 

It certainly does apply.

 

The organization in question has a clear political agenda that doesn't have anything to do with homeschooling. I don't see why they would be considered a reputable source for "news."

 

The HSLDA is a political organization, not a news organization.

[Parrothead]

Exactly, hence my real concerns. Ambiguity is not something we can afford. As we now agree that there is this ambiguity and as I am certain we agree that we already have laws against child prostitution etc perhaps you could explain the necessity of further muddying our rights by introducing the Convention. If your only argument is that we can then be in lockstep with other nations, I am afraid that that is (to me) not good enough.

 

 

Given this political junk why do you think that Congress would actually ensure the necessary protections of our rights?

 

 

Nobody has yet shown the necessity of US entry into the convention. At worst it is a dangerous attack on our rights and best a touchy feely feel good measure. Why do we need this? If the US is standing alone, so be it. Far better to be alone and right than part of a group and wrong.

:iagree:

 

:patriot:

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

It certainly does apply.

 

The organization in question has a clear political agenda that doesn't have anything to do with homeschooling. I don't see why they would be considered a reputable source for "news."

 

The HSLDA is a political organization, not a news organization.

 

No, it doesn't apply and quite frankly opposition to HSLDA is a topic for its own thread if that is what you would like to discuss. As HSLDA is partnered with another group in trying to represent the Johannson family and the interests of homeschoolers in this case they are the group who's press releases are the basis of all other news articles. Now you can choose to ignore or distrust all news on this case based on your dislike of a member of the legal team, that will not change the facts of the case. I opted to quote HSLDA initially as they are the source for news reports in order to avoid rabbit trails like this one.

[Slartibartfast]

No, it doesn't apply and quite frankly opposition to HSLDA is a topic for its own thread if that is what you would like to discuss. As HSLDA is partnered with another group in trying to represent the Johannson family and the interests of homeschoolers in this case they are the group who's press releases are the basis of all other news articles. Now you can choose to ignore or distrust all news on this case based on your dislike of a member of the legal team, that will not change the facts of the case. I opted to quote HSLDA initially as they are the source for news reports in order to avoid rabbit trails like this one.

 

There is no rule stating that I may or may not post dissent to a certain group.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

There is no rule stating that I may or may not post dissent to a certain group.

 

Feel free, I just suggest that you use a thread designed for that purpose rather than distract from another discussion.

[WishboneDawn]

No, it doesn't apply and quite frankly opposition to HSLDA is a topic for its own thread if that is what you would like to discuss. As HSLDA is partnered with another group in trying to represent the Johannson family and the interests of homeschoolers in this case they are the group who's press releases are the basis of all other news articles. Now you can choose to ignore or distrust all news on this case based on your dislike of a member of the legal team, that will not change the facts of the case. I opted to quote HSLDA initially as they are the source for news reports in order to avoid rabbit trails like this one.

 

Sis wasn't simply voicing opposition. She was pointing out the political agenda of the HSLDA and that's key to this matter. The Swedish gov't may appeal to the UNROC but if the HSLDA, due to it's political agenda, does not then the problem isn't that convention, the problem is an advocate that refuses to use the protection inherent in the convention. The UNROC is made a threat only by the HSLDA's refusal to appeal to it.

 

My own feeling is that homeschooling freedoms in Sweden are less important to the HSLDA then stirring up animosity toward the UN in the USA.

[Slartibartfast]

Feel free, I just suggest that you use a thread designed for that purpose rather than distract from another discussion.

 

It was moving along just fine. I only posted to object to the group, you are the one that sparked a conversation. :)

 

 

My own feeling is that homeschooling freedoms in Sweden are less important to the HSLDA then stirring up animosity toward the UN in the USA.

 

 

I agree. :)

[Peek a Boo]

It certainly does apply.

 

The organization in question has a clear political agenda that doesn't have anything to do with homeschooling. I don't see why they would be considered a reputable source for "news."

 

The HSLDA is a political organization, not a news organization.

 

yeah! excellent argument!

Instead of actually using our own brains to examine the evidence and what is being said, let's use a big ol' emotional blanket statement to sweep it all under the rug.

 

 

lookie-- my turn!

Dawkins has a clear religious agenda that doesn't have anything to do with science. i don't see how he would be considered a reputable source for "science."

 

Dawkins is an anti-religious wacko, not a scientist.

 

wow- whaddya know? that sounds pretty good! thanks :)

[WishboneDawn]

yeah! excellent argument!

Instead of actually using our own brains to examine the evidence and what is being said, let's use a big ol' emotional blanket statement to sweep it all under the rug.

 

I've written two posts already in this thread, including one that referenced Sis's comment, that explained why the HSLDA's political, religious, whatever-else-agenda are key to this issue.

 

Honestly, if we're going to use our brains to examine evidence then lets examine ALL the evidence.

[Peek a Boo]

As we've seen *just now* it is quite easy for anyone in power to interpret this treaty in any number of ways. The bigger question is: what real purpose is served by the US signing this Treaty?

 

 

 

The main issue with not ratifying the treaty? Well, it's just us and Somalia. It doesn't really put us in a good light when it comes to advocating for children's rights whether you're talking child slavery, child prostitution, child labor or anything.

 

this is a buncha baloney.

We already have a much better record advocating for children's rights. Signing an impotent treaty does nothing to bolster our case.

Do you really think that since China and other countries have signed the treaty that they are automatically seen as BETTER than the US when it comes to those issues? really?

 

 

has anyone actually looked at the Reservations on the UNRoC? and the objections to the reservations? It's like a middle school locker room. That "everyone else" has signed it isn't saying much.

 

we had this discussion back w/ Volty some time ago. I'll go find the link....

[Slartibartfast]

I've written two posts already in this thread, including one that referenced Sis's comment, that explained why the HSLDA's political, religious, whatever-else-agenda are key to this issue.

 

Honestly, if we're going to use our brains to examine evidence then lets examine ALL the evidence.

 

What are you thinking? Of course we should not question a source, particularly one so reputable as the HSLDA!

[momtoboys]

I have not read all the responses.

 

I think that some people get all panicky about things like the UN Rights of the Child treaty. Not that there *isn't* cause for concern. I'm not saying that.

 

I believe that *healthy, functional* parents should be able to raise and educate their children as they see fit, including in matters of religion.

 

I am however, hesitant, to adopt any kind of parental rights amendment to the Constitution. My main reason for my position is that I don't think we need to make it any harder to investigate, arrest, and prosecute child abusers, many of whom already get away with their crimes all the time.

[Peek a Boo]

I've written two posts already in this thread, including one that referenced Sis's comment, that explained why the HSLDA's political, religious, whatever-else-agenda are key to this issue.

 

Honestly, if we're going to use our brains to examine evidence then lets examine ALL the evidence.

 

yes!

 

HSLDA has a political agenda. Now that we've established that, you need to examine why their statements are false or valid. Since we already know that legal experts disagree strongly on this, the claims made are certainly valid concerns.

 

so now we move on to examining the claims [which are made by organizations other than HSLDA as well].

 

now you can certainly go forth [as Mungo has] and cite legally why you think the concerns aren't valid, but at the end of the day I'm more interested in only seeing treaties that can't be misinterpreted and manipulated to allow power plays by an increasingly socialistic gvt. And this one doesn't fit the bill.

[LisaNY]

My opinion? They weren't worried during the previous admin, because he was keepin' us safe! But hey, it's all different now.

 

Snort.

 

This has been a fairly civil discussion so far. With posts like this, it won't stay that way for long. :glare:

[LibraryLover]

I'm shocked (shocked) that the HSLDA has come out against universal human rights and the UN.

 

Where's the thread about why people don't like this fundamentalist-conservative political action organization?

 

Blech! :ack2:

 

Bill

 

That's as close as we get to a vomiting smilie, huh? Sometimes it's just not enough.