Sue Rodgerson

The Interim, September, 1989

In 1980 the Trudeau government signed (and convinced Canadians it was legally bound to implement) the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Beginning in 1982, our government incorporated many of the Convention's articles into the Human Rights section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Soon after, traditional male/ female roles were targeted by feminist groups and agents of change, often financed with government grants. All-male clubs and organizations were eliminated; speedy no-fault divorce left many women on welfare, while others were urged to abandon homemaking for new fulfillment in the paid work-force. Men were passed over for promotion as less qualified women "leap-frogged" over them thanks to affirmative action's gender quotas.

The Convention affected both public and private sectors. It seemed that any discrimination in favour of women was tolerated, if not encouraged. Eventually it became apparent that getting hired often depended more on one's "minority" status than basic qualifications, especially for government jobs.

New Convention

Now another equally ominous United Nations Convention threatens our nation. Entitled The Convention on the Rights of the Child, it strips parents and children of rights society had taken for granted since time immemorial. It makes the 1980 Convention look puny by comparison.

Joe Clark

With External Affairs Minister Joe Clark as head cheerleader, our government masterminded much of this Convention. In a letter to a Member of Parliament, Clark thanked colleague for his "letters of support" for this document which denies protection to unborn children. He also described his pleasure with a public campaign, organized by Save the Children Canada, to gain support for the final draft of the Convention. If Canada ratifies it, we are told, it will become legally bound to make our laws conform to its 54 Articles.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is broken down into three sections: Survival, Protection and Development. Since press reports have touched on only their most benign aspects, careful reading of the articles themselves is necessary to reveal the cancer within.

Preamble and Article 1

Here reference is made to the 1959 U.K Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which states: "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."

Article 1, however, defines the child merely as "a human being under the age of 18 years." In order to protect the unborn-child, it would appear necessary to specify that a human being is such from the moment of concepton. As it stands, the Convention offers protection with one hand and withdraws it with the other.

Article 4

This section calls for nations to take aggressive action, legislative and administrative, to enforce the Convention. UNICEF represenative Kimberly Gamble declared that "Countries will have to change their laws and constitutions and legal system in order to comply with the convention." (Toronto Star, May 27,1989)

Article 12

This reads like a page out of Sweden's child laws. Children in that country are legally permitted to "divorce" themselves from their parents. When we look at modern Swedish life, we may be viewing our nation's future.

According to Dr. Eric Brodin, media analyst and native-born Swede, his country's status as the model welfare state is a myth. He notes the following features: - compulsory programs in sex education, socialization and religion intended to counteract parental values; - parents are denied the right to choose an education for their children, since private and denominational schools are forbidden; - propaganda on state-controlled radio and TV against parasitic mothers, i.e., homemakers;

As self-declared protector of the children's best interests, the state has the right to determine the suitability of parents to keep them, and can in fact remove them without a court case or a warrant. It can also determine whether a spanking, verbal chastisement or what we would call "grounding" constitutes an infringement of the law and makes the parent subject to a jail sentence.

The U.N. Convention mimics many aspects of the Swedish model. Article 12, in particular, allows children the right to express their views in any judicial or administrative hearings affecting their welfare.

Article 13

This article deals with freedom of expression, broadly defined as "the 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." Are children to have such a right, regardless of their parents' wishes'?

Article 14

This section is self-contradictory. One paragraph proclaims a child's right to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion"; the next calls for states to respect the rights and duties of parents to direct their children. These two sets of "rights" are in conflict. But if parents are prevented from instilling their values and beliefs (religious or other) in their own children, then they become little more than state manipulated daycare workers, subject to their children's whims. Governments were never created to take rights from parents; their role was to protect the family, and to protect, not usurp the functions of that God-given institution.

Often our educational system seems to have its own agenda: it strives to inculcate secular and humanistic values. This Convention serves only to reinforce that agenda.

The final paragraph of Article 14 holds a chilling thought. It limits "freedom to manifest one's religion" by means of "laws necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." Does this mean that children will not have the right to share their parents' faith?

A "privacy" clause offers children the right to protection from interference with "his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, not to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation." So, parents, think twice before checking your child's room, for suspected drugs or occult books. Don't accuse your neighbour's child of breaking a window or theft. You may find yourself in court!

We live in a time when common sense is considered nonsense.

Article 17

Thanks to this article, children will become targets of a well-organized media blitz to ensure access to information "aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health." It encourages the mass media to disseminate information in accordance with Article 29's cultivation of peace, tolerance, sexual equality, human rights and human potential; to promote an international mentality; and to develop guidelines "for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being."

Who decides? Is the child to be subjected to propaganda from the Humanist Movement, or the New Age, or the Human Potential Movement? Any group which strives to indoctrinate children can take comfort from this article; thought control by the state can easily become a reality.

Article 18

This section provides state run daycare for children of working parents. On the other hand, subsection (1) recognizes "The principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child." With the next sentence, the state makes such recognition a sham by stating that day care is the "right" of working parents. One can only assume that homemakers do not "work."

The remainder of the Convention deals with native, minority and handicapped groups plus a myriad of additional socially-based rights. Even family planning education and services (abortion?) are included under the heading of "preventative health care."

Concern is merited

Space does not permit a more detailed account of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. There is, however, far more in its pages that merits the concern of parents and educators.

Children do have the scripturally-mandated right to be loved and cared for. Freedom, without loving discipline, is not freedom but abuse. Any parent knows that children feel truly secure only when they have limits and boundaries set for their own protection as well as for protection from others.

In no place does this Convention list parental rights or child responsibilities. Obedience, respect for the wisdom of age and authority, and reverence for God (or any Supreme Being, other than the State) have been omitted by its creators.

What can be done?

Shall we wring our hands bemoaning the fact that little can be done? Let us not roll over and "play dead" when our children's future is at stake. Let's get "fighting mad" and confront our government leaders before it is too late. Parents, teachers, clergy and anyone who works with children should have a copy of this Convention. It can be obtained from your local Member of Parliament.

Then write your local MP with a copy to the Minister of External Affairs, Joe Clark.

© Copyright: LifeSite Daily News, a production of Interim Publishing.
Acknowledgement of source is required.
Comments or questions: lsn@lifesite.net LifeSite Daily News archived at
http://www.lifesite.net