The excellent panel of speakers featuring Michael Farris, Chancellor of Patrick Henry College, David Smolin, Professor Cumberland School of Law, Johan Van der Vyver, Professor of Law at Emory University, and our own Professor Kathleen McKee. Local attorney Darrell Harding was the moderator.
Tasked with explaining the relationship of the CRC first to families, and then to federalism, the panelists waged a battle of three differing perspectives. Each speaker held to a unique Christian worldview which resulted in a fascinating clash of perspectives. Professor McKee provided an incredibly comprehensive summary that left the presenters and participants with even more to consider in any analysis of the CRC, its effectiveness for children, its impact on families, and its impact on those nation states that hold to it, and those which do not.
To read Professor Kohm's latest scholarship on this subject see:
Suffer the Children: How the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Has Not Supported Children, 22 N.Y. I. L. REV. 1 (Summer 2009)(proffering that the CRC has potentially harmed children, rather than brought them aid as the plight of children around the globe is as horrific, if not worse, than it has ever been in recorded history)(cited in Pierro A. Tozzi, U.N. "Alternative Care" Guidelines Scrutinized for Pitting Children Against Parents, 12 Catholic Fam.& Human Rights Inst.,
http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1484/pub_detail.asp (Oct. 22, 2009).
Strong and stable families focused on the best interests of the children are the best hope for the welfare of children - and child-centered family restoration.
Incredible ... citing the Catholic Church at this time as having authority to speak about either children's rights or the family. A bit of getting one's house in order and thinking about atoning for the thousands of situations whose existence were kept suppressed. The right to protection from exploitation. The right to be heard. Pitting children against their families? The silence inmposed on children, the lies they were forced to live and endure as part of their abuse.
ReplyDeleteYou rabbit on about the CRC being a threat to children and the family. Really? Show me the harm it has done to match decades, maybe centuries of abuse condoned/covered up/ignored in the name of faith. The damage done to family life, not only to the families who raised abused children but the families they then raised.
Let's face it, the real issue is whether children have the right to choose their faith, to make up their own minds. What I find staggering is the claim they would be set against their parents by having such a right.
It is not just the warped and sick individuals who have been able to hide behind the wall of deception, but all those who in so many ways and on so many occasions helped construct that wall and to maintain it. That has included parents who claimed the authority to decide their children's faith - so many children not believed or knowing they would not be. It's easy to blame the Pope, to make him a scapegoat. It goes so much further.
I really enjoyed the symposium about the CRC and its application in America. I admit there are serious issues of treatment of children all over the world but I find it farfetched to think the CRC will solve those issues.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that was not addressed at the symposium is we speak of all of these rights that will be afforded to children but there was no mention of the responsibilities that come with these rights. We all know that with rights come responsibilities, or at least that is how it should work.
I spoke to Prof. Van der Vyver for several hours before and after the event, and it seems to me that he simply dos not understand the American aversion to bureaucratic intervention into our lives. Given the invasive nature of the CPS around the country, combined with the specter of guaranteed "rights" for children, looms large in the minds of many Americans.
ReplyDeleteIn short, many Americans see it as yet another auspices for the Federal and State government to intervene in their childrearing autonomy.
Also, the discussion about the disconnect as to the definition of "rights" in the U.S. and "rights" other places around the world. The U.S. conceptualization of rights as opportunities is quite starkly different than the more result-based conception of rights around the world. Thus, what "rights" mean in the CRC context may be much different than what most Americans think of when presented with a question about the ratification of the CRC.
After sitting through this debate I found that the debate really seemed to turn on whether the panelist liked or disliked the U.N. Not just the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but the U.N. generally. Those that seemed to speak against the convention argued that the U.N. is a large oppressive organization that takes the rights away from Americans, while those that liked the convention argued that the U.N. helped bring accountability and consistency. I felt that the debate could have profited greatly from a discussion of the actual values of the convention rather than ideological differences about whether the U.N. is the Axis of Evil or the Savior of the Modernized World.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that the U.S. could value greatly in the eyes of the world by either signing on to the convention with reservations or at least modifying our laws to reflect some of the changes in the convention. Professor Van der Vyver did suffer from a disconnect with the American system, however, his views were not completely irreconcilable to the American way and federalism.
Everyone seemed to treat South Africa as a special case and say that the results could never be replicated in another country. I think that is wrong and South Africa can serve as a model for many developing nations.