I feel that "The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child" is an ominous document.  How better to change a country than to start with the children (isn't that what Hitler did)?  Rewrite history, convince the children that they should think "internationally", change the educational system so that they are "dumbing down" the children rather than increasing their learning.  I heard a very profound statement on TV just last night; it was a commercial about teachers and on the screen was a teacher stating (and I'm paraphrasing this) "I can change the world through my job of  teaching the children."   (Be sure to check out the information in my education section, the "education reform" is not all its cracked up to be)

"and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations,"
Well that's ok; as long as YOUR ideals are in harmony with those in the "Charter of the United Nations", but suppose they aren't?  What then?  Will you be forced to teach your child those ideals, even though you may not like them or disagree with them?  Will you face charges in court?
return to document

" including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth"
Hmmm, GOOD WORDING here!!!  Recognizes that a fetus is more than just a piece of tissue, that it is in fact a baby, a child. (at least that is the way I read it)  OK so if that is correct then what happens in countries where they do not recognize the baby as a living being and those that have legalized abortion?  Are they in violation of this clause?
return to document

"the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration"
According to whom?  Lets face it folks we don't all agree on what is in 'the best interests of the child'.  What I see as being good for my child you may not think is good for your child.  Just as a side note; I had 7 children, none of them were ever put on a feeding schedule by me, I found that by and large they usually put themselves on a 3 or 4 hour schedule but I was criticized by many because they thought that what I was doing "wasn't good for the baby" and that I was letting him/her control me rather than the other way around.
  Or the fact that I kept my youngest out of school for most of her kindergarten year because of a severely broken collarbone and some emotional problems she was having that we eventually found out were due to a learning disability.  Again, I wasn't doing what was in the 'best interest' of my child.... turned out in the end that I HAD done the best thing for her.  So who determines what is best for the child?
   In another instance, I had moved from Pennsylvania to New Jersey and about a month into the school year I was summoned to the school to discuss my oldest son, they wanted to take him out of first grade and put him in kindergarten because he wasn't keeping pace like they thought he should.  I should also note that this was a brand new community and the class that he was in was filled with all the children that had come from different school districts (obviously they were all going through an adjustment period at the same time).  I argued that I didn't want him placed in kindergarten after only a month in the class and that they should give it a little more time, I knew my child and felt he would keep pace in a few weeks.  The principal told me point blank that 'we know your child better than you do and we're placing him in a kindergarten class'.  I explained to the principal that knowing my son as I did it was giving him the 'easy way out' and that would have a lasting effect on him.  Two days later my son  was  in kindergarten (much to his glee), to this day he tries to take the easy way out of any given situation.  I knew that my son could do things, he just preferred not to, and if he was pushed he could do what he had to do and do it well.
return to document

"undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her,"
Whoa, hold on here.  NOW they're going to tell me what my 'rights and duties' are as a parent????  I don't think so.  MOST (granted not all) parents already give their children the protection and care necessary for the child's well-being.
return to document

"The child shall be registered immediately after birth"
Gee I wonder why....now could it be for 'tracking' purposes?  I've heard of cases here where they wouldn't let the parents take the baby home from the hospital until they gave it a name for the birth certificate.  What happens if you haven't decided on a name?
return to document

"States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence."
I don't like the sounds of this one at all.  Here we go again with someone else determining what is 'in the best interests' of my child!!!!  And according to whose standards?  My standards may be entirely different from that of the state's, so does that make mine wrong and their's 'right'?
return to document

"1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include 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.
 2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
  (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
  (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals."
Oh isn't this just dandy.  Picture this one; your child is using his/her 'freedom of expression' in a way YOU deem to be wrong and you try to make him/her stop doing it.  What does your child do?  Naturally, he/she takes you to court.  Remember those children 'divorcing' their parents cases a while back?  There isn't one mention here about a parents wishes being one of the 'restrictions', not one mention, what happens to the parents rights on this one?
return to document

"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."
Gee I see no mention of  'child' here.  Hmmmm, and here I have a question (again); what the heck does 'limitations as are prescribed by law' mean in reference to 'freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs'?
return to document

"development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being, bearing in mind the provisions of articles 13 and 18."
Who is going to develop these 'appropriate guidelines'?  The parent?  I think not the way this is written it looks to me like the UN (or the 'State') is going to develop these guidelines.  Now what happens if they see something as 'appropriate' that you do not, or vice versa?  Who (what) is the determining factor?  The parent or the state?
For example, when they first started teaching 'sex education' in the schools I did not want my children learning it through the school as I wanted to teach them myself according to my beliefs and standards, BUT my son was placed in the class anyhow (at that time they still required parental permission to put your child in that class, and I had not given mine).  One day my son (who wasn't the greatest student in the world) came home announcing that he had gotten an "A" on a test.  As an excited parent I asked to see the test and was appalled to see that it was an explicit test on the menstrual cycle and reproductive process of the female.  I called the school the next day demanding that they remove him from that class immediately....they said that the only other option for my son during that period would be for him to go to the library....I said 'good, send him to the library'.  They had determined that the class was 'good for the child' and the only way for me to exert MY wishes was to protest vehemently!!  At the age of 12 my son knew as much about my body as I did.
return to document

"2. For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.
 3. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child-care services and facilities for which they are eligible."
OK, what is 'appropriate assistance' and does the parent ask for it or is it just automatically rendered?  What constitutes 'eligible' in the child-care services and facilities part?  And is this why suddenly the Clinton Administration is bringing up the subject of 'child-care' in this country?
return to document
 

"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"
I'll tell ya folks, this document really undermines parents.  It seems its always the 'state' that is going to take action, deem appropriate, etc, etc, etc.  Ok now let me ask you, what is going to be determined as 'physical or mental violence'?  I've heard of instances where simply smacking your child was termed abuse; now I'm not talking about smacking across the face, just a simple smack.  I also heard of an instance where a parent reprimanded her child in a store by spanking the child on his buttocks and that was termed 'physical violence'.  Unless I'm really 'going overboard' on my child I don't think the 'state' should determine what is violence.  Also, you have races, etc who perceive these things differently...is the state also going to step in on these issues?
return to document

"Make primary education compulsory"
Sheesh, I have a problem with this too.....now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against education, I'm all for it having gone back to school 4 times myself.  The problem I have is with the compulsory part.  No choice here, you either do it or else.