CHAPTER 8
The UN Grab for Your Child
I submit that this House has not taken the time to reflect upon the
implications of the Convention and will be in for a tremendous shock
when judges around the country start applying the Convention as the
supreme law of the land.1 • Representative Thomas J. Bliley (R-VA),
September 17, 1990
The
United Nations World Summit for Children, held in New York during
September 1990, was widely heralded as “the largest gathering ever
of world leaders.” President Bush, in the midst of his Persian Gulf
military buildup, left Washington to join more than 70 other heads
of state at the UN for the historic event. The poignant photographs
and news clippings of presidents and prime ministers embracing
adorable tykes while calling on the world to “save the children”
contrasted sharply with the grim forecasts of war and gave a softer
edge to the President’s almost daily calls for a new world order and
a strengthened United Nations.
According to UN organizers, more than a million persons worldwide
participated in candlelight vigils that week.2
In New York,
politicians and entertainment celebrities jostled with one another
for television and photo opportunities at the city’s numerous summit
programs. Over and over again, summit participants and media pundits
parroted the litany of statistics compiled by the officials of the
Children’s Defense Fund and other self-proclaimed guardians of the
world’s children. Beneath all of these emotional appeals lay an
agenda full of ever-larger and ever-more-costly socialist programs.
Time magazine and its collectivist chorus of media allies cheered
the summit’s support for what was termed “a bold 10-year plan to
reduce mortality rates and poverty among children and to improve
access to immunizations and education.”3
Noble Sounding Rhetoric
But the real summit send-off was saved for the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child. The UN has hailed this treaty
as “a landmark in international efforts to strengthen justice,
peace, and freedom in the world,” and “the most complete statement
of children’s rights ever made.”4 UNICEF Director James Grant called
the treaty “the Magna Carta for children, an instrument of
far-reaching significance for the needs of those who are humanity’s
most vulnerable.”5 Who could find fault with such lofty aspirations?
Almost no one, it seems. The Convention won world support like no
previous treaty.
According to the UN’s Fact Sheet No. 10, The Rights
of the Child:
The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted — unanimously
— by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November, 1989....
After its adoption by the General Assembly, the Convention was
opened for signature on 26 January 1990. Sixty-one countries signed
the document on that day — a record first-day response....
The Convention entered into force on 2 September 1990 — one month
after the twentieth State ratified it.... A little over seven months
separated the opening for signature and the entry into force of the
Convention; this is a very short period for an international treaty
— generally it takes much longer — and it shows the world-wide
interest and support for the child Convention. [Emphasis in
original]
A Lone Voice in Congress
More truthfully, it shows the effectiveness of the worldwide
propaganda campaign orchestrated by internationalists who are
willing to exploit a natural concern for the plight of children to
advance their agenda for a new world order. In the days before the
summit, both Houses of the U.S. Congress hurriedly passed
resolutions urging President Bush to sign the convention and send it
to the Senate for ratification before attending the summit.
Opposition to the Convention was virtually nonexistent. Only
Representative Thomas J. Bliley (R-VA) rose to urge caution and
restraint.6 Bliley did not merely nitpick about commas and whereas.
His reading of the document left him convinced that “the convention
represents a potential threat to our form of government.”7
Was he
reading the same document his colleagues were given? More than
likely, he was the only member of Congress who actually did read
what the Convention says. During his remarks in the House on
September 17, 1990, Bliley asked, “Will the Convention really solve
the problems our children face?
Is it merely an article of good intentions to make us feel good
about ourselves? Or, is it actually a potential threat to some of
our most precious freedoms, civil liberties, and our form of
government?”8
The congressman from Virginia reminded his colleagues that no
hearings had been held on the treaty they were asking the President
to sign. “I submit,” said Bliley,
“that this House has not taken the
time to reflect upon the implications of the Convention and will be
in for a tremendous shock when judges around the country start
applying the Convention as the supreme law of the land.”9
Bliley continued:
“Have we determined the impact that this
Convention will have on our system of federalism? No. Have we
resolved in our minds its inherent conflicts with the U.S.
Constitution? I think not. Do we realize the great new powers
Congress is taking away from the sovereign States, as well as giving
up itself, to the judiciary?”10
Dangerous Document
The Convention is a lengthy, complex document comprised of 54
articles dealing with adoption, education, child labor, child
pornography, child abuse, prenatal and postnatal health care for
women, family reunification, and many other issues. Although it is
replete with rhetoric about “rights” and “freedom” and
noble-sounding appeals for the protection of children, from the
standpoint of American constitutional law it is fundamentally
flawed. Like the UN Charter and many UN conventions addressing
“rights,” this Convention on the Rights of the Child is based on the
philosophy that rights are granted by governments, and it is,
therefore, completely at odds with the Declaration of Independence,
and the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
In an op-ed piece appearing in the Washington Times, Bliley’s
solitary voice again warned of the dangers presented by the
Convention:
As written, it places government in a superior position to its
citizens by granting these rights to children. What is so bad about
that? Such an interpretation is antithetical to our limitations on
government. Most of these “rights” are not presently found in our
Constitution, but rather, are considered to be among our inalienable
rights endowed by our Creator.11
It can’t be repeated too often that, in the Declaration of
Independence, our Founding Fathers asserted the revolutionary and
“self-evident” truth that “men ... are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights.” The Founders went on to assert, “to
secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”
Note the
logical sequence:
1) God exists
2) God creates man and endows him
with rights
3) Man creates government to protect those rights
The individual precedes and is superior to government. Our
Constitution is not a body of law to govern the people; it was
formulated to govern the government, to make government the servant
and not the master of the people.
The United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child springs from a totally different
philosophical foundation. Like the UN Charter and the Soviet
Constitution, it views rights not as God-given and unalienable, but
as government-given and conditional. This view of the origin of
rights is completely incompatible with liberty. For, if one accepts
the premise that rights come from government, then one must accept
the corollary that government is entitled to circumscribe, withhold,
or even cancel those rights.
This concept of rights was stated by
Andrei Vishinsky, Stalin’s chief prosecutor and chairman of the
Soviet Supreme Court, during debate on the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights on December 10, 1948 at the United Nations. Said
Vishinsky: “The rights of human beings cannot be considered outside
the prerogatives of governments, and the very understanding of human
rights is a governmental concept.”12 A typical example of this
philosophy can be found in Article 14, Section 1 of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child:
“States Parties shall respect the right
of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”
Section 3 then proceeds to neuter that right with a Soviet-style
clause:
“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.”
Similar words are used
repeatedly in the Convention to legally wipe out all guarantees for
the “rights” that are set forth in the document.
Article 10 says: “The right to leave any country shall be subject
only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law....” This is the
kind of pliable legalese beloved by all tyrants. And it stands in
stark contrast to the absolute, unconditional nature of our Bill of
Rights.
At Odds With Constitution
The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are directed primarily at
limiting the power and scope of the federal government and
secondarily at providing the legal standing for the people and the
states to assert themselves against any encroachments by the federal
government. The First Amendment, for example, states: “Congress
shall make no law....” The Convention on the Rights of the Child, on
the other hand, supplies opportunity and authority for the United
Nations — or the U.S. government acting under the UN Convention — to
enforce its provisions against state and local governments, and even
against parents.
Article 13 of the Convention mandates that the child “shall have the
right to freedom of expression,” including “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.”
Could this be construed to mean that parents who do not allow their
child to “express” himself by wearing Satanic symbols or obscene
T-shirts are violating the child’s rights? Do children have the
“right” to speak to their parents in any manner they choose? Could
school authorities who impose dress codes or who prohibit the
printing of obscene, racist, or other objectionable material in a
school newspaper be prosecuted under the Convention? Would state
laws and local ordinances restricting the access of minors to
pornography and “mature” literature be struck down?
Could Article 16’s provisions for the child’s right to privacy be
used to secure abortions for youngsters without parental knowledge
or consent, or to prohibit parents from searching a child’s room for
drugs or other dangerous or illegal items? What about Article 31’s
guarantee of the child’s right to “rest and leisure,” “recreational
activities,” and “cultural life and the arts”? Would parents who
make little Ricky do chores or practice the piano when he says he
wants to play baseball be liable for prosecution? Might they be
hauled before a judge or have their child removed from their custody
because they didn’t allow him to attend a “heavy metal” rock
concert?
Blank Check for Judiciary
Are these unfounded, paranoid fears? Hardly. Anyone in the least
familiar with similar litigation and court decisions of the past few
years knows that cases like these are certain to arise. And then?
“Hundreds of judges will be left to interpret the convention as they
please,” warns Representative Bliley, “and will possess all power to
supersede state laws....”13
Under the currently-prevailing
jurisprudence, Article VI of the Constitution is badly misconstrued
to hold that all treaties — regardless of their constitutionality —
are the “supreme law of the land” (see Chapter 6). And there are
plenty of revolutionaries in our state and federal judiciaries who
would leap at the opportunity to use this UN Convention to launch
judicial assaults against state and federal laws, state
constitutions, and even the U.S. Constitution itself.
From the floor of the House of Representatives, Bliley asked his
colleagues: “Who can explain to me the meaning of Article 24,
Section 3 which provides that ‘States parties shall take all
effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing
traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.’”14
“Here,” noted Mr. Bliley, “is a new standard for us to ponder:
Something need not be hazardous or even pose a risk — it need be
only prejudicial to be abolished by government. Who will define what
is prejudicial as this Convention takes effect?”15
Who indeed, but
the very state and federal judges who have already run roughshod
over the Constitution. These same judges will define what the
Convention means by “health” and by “traditional practices.” Does
“health” encompass physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual
well-being, as some argue? If so, what about the situation of the
confused teenager who has been convinced by the prohomosexual
“Project 10” program at school that he is “gay”? If his parents try
to convince him otherwise, or take him to their pastor or a
psychologist for counseling, are they engaging in illegal
“traditional practices” prejudicial to his emotional health? Could
requiring a child to participate in traditional practices, like
family prayer and devotions, or to attend church services also be
prejudicial?
Without doubt, there are many lawyers who would so
argue, and many judges who would so rule.
A Socialist Manifesto
There are many other pitfalls to be found in the Convention. The
treaty recognizes a “right of the child to education” (Article 28),
and in true Marxist fashion requires every nation that is a
contracting party to “make primary education compulsory and
available to all.” Private education is not explicitly outlawed, but
private schools, like government schools, must teach “the principles
enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations” and must “conform to
such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State.” (Article
29)
Several other articles of this UN Convention would impose new,
open-ended obligations on national and/or state governments. In
addition to “free” education, the state would also be required to
provide free child care, health care services, social security,
family planning services, prenatal and postnatal care for mothers,
and nutrition and housing “to the maximum extent of their available
resources.” (Article 4)
This amounts to a whole new socialist
manifesto for America. Not only would it provide politicians and
judges unprecedented opportunity to reach into the taxpayers’
pockets for all “available resources,” but the Convention would
fundamentally alter the function of government from a protector of
rights to a provider of services. This would make government a
violator of rights, since government has no wealth of its own and
must first take from one segment of society (violating its rights)
to provide for another segment.
And gov’s ability and propensity to
violate rights and to control the people it cares for always
increase as more and more people become dependent upon government
for goods and services.
Look Who Has Signed
One hundred thirty-four countries have signed the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, and 85 have ratified it. Although President
Bush has voiced his support of the Convention, the United States has
not yet signed or ratified the treaty — a situation that “liberals,”
internationalists, and Establishment Insiders find intolerable.
After all, the argument goes, as the world’s leading exemplar of
freedom, our nation must show itself to be at least as “progressive”
regarding children’s rights as Convention signatories China, Zambia,
Afghanistan, Albania, Yemen, Cuba, Bulgaria, and Algeria. If we
ratify this treaty, we will join the stellar company of ratifiers
like the former USSR, Angola, Mongolia, Romania, Nepal, Uganda,
Vietnam, Laos, Zaire, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Lebanon,
Yugoslavia, and North Korea.
Many of these signatory nations outdo
one another as the worst child abusers in the history of mankind.
Even as their heads of state signed the parchment, their troops and
police forces were murdering, oppressing, and otherwise violating
the rights of millions of children in Africa, Asia, Europe, and
Latin America.
In an attempt to win pro-life support, the Convention’s preamble
feigns support for “appropriate legal protection, before as well as
after birth.” But the preamble is not legally binding, and every
effort to include specific language in the treaty protecting the
unborn has been rebuffed. This should surprise no one, since the UN,
through its Population Fund, World Health Organization, and other
agencies and programs, is one of the world’s greatest promoters of
abortion (see Chapter 9).
“A great many people,” observes Bliley, “would probably be willing
to sacrifice major portions of our Constitution if the ratification
of this document could instantly end poverty and drug abuse,
guarantee that not another child would be physically or sexually
abused and shut down the pornography industry that has infected the
cell of our society, the family. But it will not, and we will have
exchanged our history as the oldest constitutional government for a
new bureaucracy.”16
Bliley concludes:
“It finally becomes clear. Ratification is not
about children; it is about power.”17
Like the many other UN
treaties (addressing the environment, women’s rights, animal rights,
minority rights, drug trafficking, etc.), the Convention on the
Rights of the Child is about power — the power to undermine and
destroy our Constitution, our national sovereignty, and our
God-given rights.
Notes
1. Congressional Record, September 17, 1990, p. H 7687.
2. “Suffer the Little Children,” Time, October 8, 1990, p. 41.
3. Ibid. 4. “A Landmark for Children’s Rights,” in The Rights of the Child:
Fact Sheet No. 10 (United Nations,
1990), p. 1. 5. UNICEF director James Grant quoted by Senator Jesse Helms in
Congressional Record, September
11, 1990, p. S 12788. 6. Thomas Bliley, Congressional Record, September 17, 1990, p. H
7687-88. 7. Bliley, “U.N. Playpen Politics: A Bid to Nanny,” Washington
Times, September 24, 1990, p. G3. 8. Bliley, Congressional Record, p. H 7687.
9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Bliley, Washington Times. 12. Andrei Vishinsky in UN General Assembly debate, quoted by Robert
W. Lee, The United Nations
Conspiracy (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1981), p. 100. See also
John Foster Dulles, War or Peace
(New York: Macmillan, 1950), p. 203. 13. Bliley, Washington Times.
14. Bliley, Congressional Record, p. H 7687. 15. Ibid.
16. Bliley, Washington Times. 17. Ibid.
Back to
Contents
|