Question, Re: Convention on the Rights of the Child

[FanIn80]

I was checking out an auction on Steve Nash's foundation website www.stevenash.org, and I came across this tidbit:

The Foundation’s mission goes from “underprivileged” to “underserved.”

In 1991, Canada ratified a United Nations document called the Convention On the Rights Of the Child (the United States remains the only UN member state to have not ratified these basic rights). This paper recognizes that children need certain things to be able to grow, and promises to deliver them for the sake of all children. At the Steve Nash Foundation, we work hard to ensure that children have access to those rights that are due to them — to be healthy, to learn, to live free of abuse, and to play without fear of harm. We don’t believe any of these aims to be privileges, yet we see constantly the words “underprivileged” ascribed to children lacking the resources necessary to ensure their growth. Having a school that you can walk to without fear of violence should not be seen as a privilege. Basic nutrition and clean water should not be seen as a privilege. Living in a safe, loving home environment should not be seen as a privilege. We are privileged by the presence of children in our midst. We must take it upon ourselves to honour kids such that we demand for them nothing short of the best. We have to become outraged at the imperfection we put upon them daily. We have to do better. These kids aren’t “underprivileged.” They are underserved, undervalued, and our society’s disservice to them underexposed. Join us to make an assist for kids. Help us grow health in kids.

Anyhoo... I was reading this, and I thought the first sentence was rather odd. Why would the US not ratify this document? Does anyone have some insight into this, or even remember when this was first discussed in 1991?


Edit: Clarified the title a bit.

[fredr123]

From Wikipedia:

United States

The United States has signed the Convention, but not completed the ratification processes.[14] On February 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, at the time the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the Convention. Though generally supportive of the Convention, President Bill Clinton did not submit it to the Senate for its advice and consent. [15]

Opposition to ratification

The United States has not so far ratified the CRC, in part due to potential conflicts with the constitution and because of opposition by some political and religious conservatives to the treaty.[16]
The administration of President George W. Bush has explicitly stated its opposition to the treaty:
"The Convention on the Rights of the Child may be a positive tool for promoting child welfare for those countries that have adopted it. But we believe the text goes too far when it asserts entitlements based on economic, social and cultural rights. ... The human rights-based approach ... poses significant problems as used in this text." [17]

[Daradon]

^^^ They can't ratify it otherwise they'd get pinned for the whole, 'no child left behind' debacle.

The 'home of the free' has the least freedoms of any western nation. Domestic spying, draconian drug laws, amazingly punative tax evasion penalties, and the highest prison population by FAR are just a few examples of this.

In the U.S. defense, I don't know how much this convention really does though...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ They can't ratify it otherwise they'd get pinned for the whole, 'no child left behind' debacle.

The 'home of the free' has the least freedoms of any western nation. Domestic spying, draconian drug laws, amazingly punative tax evasion penalties, and the highest prison population by FAR are just a few examples of this.

In the U.S. defense, I don't know how much this convention really does though...

Every nation spies on their own people without a care about their civil liberties. Good police work under any other name is spying. In the age of the domestic terror threat, some civil liberties have to be ignored in order to improve public safety. If Canada had undergone an event such as 9/11, you don't think that there would have been severe lifting of investigative restrictives.

Draconian Drug laws? Are we talking about soft drugs, hard drugs? Most countries with exception of some euro nations have pretty hard drug laws. Personally I have no trouble with them, especially for those people that allow children to get their hands on stuff.

Punative tax evasion penalities is a good thing, everyone needs to pay their fair share. I also think that Canada should go after these people harder, and lump them in with people that don't pay off their student loans.


Highest Prison Population - I have no issues with that, in a lot of ways I think Canada needs to increase its prison population, in terms of public safety, I would rather be safe then soft on crime.

[FanIn80]

It's also important to remember that we have it pretty easy in Canada. Last I checked, the State of New York had a higher population than Canada.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I was checking out an auction on Steve Nash's foundation website www.stevenash.org, and I came across this tidbit:



Anyhoo... I was reading this, and I thought the first sentence was rather odd. Why would the US not ratify this document? Does anyone have some insight into this, or even remember when this was first discussed in 1991?


Edit: Clarified the title a bit.

There is further links in the Wiki text,[

US opposition


Conservative U.N. watchers focus on the growing tendency by some bureaucrats and policy makers to aspire to utopian goals: universal education, health care, clean environment and equal access to the political process. While these hopes are noble, say seasoned diplomats, they are not realistic, and legitimate goals must be substituted. The U.S. statement made reference to this tendency: "In its present form, the draft is a confusing mix of political and legal actions. … Its treatment of domestic obligations and international support is unbalanced and unrealistic."

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

It's also important to remember that we have it pretty easy in Canada. Last I checked, the State of New York had a higher population than Canada.

Canada's population (~35 million) is about equal to the largest state (California) and is almost double that of New York State (19 million).

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Highest Prison Population - I have no issues with that, in a lot of ways I think Canada needs to increase its prison population, in terms of public safety, I would rather be safe then soft on crime.

That would be good and all if the Yank way of doing things actually worked better than ours. They aren't any safer than we are. They have more crime than we do.

As for the Draconian drug laws... they are outdated. They don't work. We know this. Unfortunately we can't be throwing stones. While we might go easier on the sentencing I think we run our "WAR ON DRUGS" the same way they do.

[Daradon]

Oh man, we're going to go WAY off topic here, I thought there was a tie in with general freedoms, my bad for starting this, but I'll respond.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Every nation spies on their own people without a care about their civil liberties. Good police work under any other name is spying. In the age of the domestic terror threat, some civil liberties have to be ignored in order to improve public safety. If Canada had undergone an event such as 9/11, you don't think that there would have been severe lifting of investigative restrictives

Secret Prisons, admitted and (because of lack of outcry) public sponsored torture. Are those good too?

The U.S. is the only western nation that has had to deal with these 'terrorist threats' (if you mean Muslim anyway, not talking IRA or other) before the Iraq war, and only nations that went to war with Iraq were successfully targeted AFTER (Australia, Italy, Great Britain). It has WAY more to do with international policy than internal security. FEMA and Homeland Security have been a big flop anyway, so I don't see how these actions are really making the U.S. safer.

I prefer to live in a nation that sides with freedom both domestically and abroad, then one that needs force to get along with people.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Draconian Drug laws? Are we talking about soft drugs, hard drugs? Most countries with exception of some euro nations have pretty hard drug laws. Personally I have no trouble with them, especially for those people that allow children to get their hands on stuff.

Yes all drugs. More leniency for use of soft, and softer penalties for use of hard. Notice I am not arguing distribution here.

It's been proven time and again, a hard line does not stop drug use. In fact, once you take away the 'bad' factor of drugs, it loses a lot of appeal for younger citizens. People have used drugs for good since the beginning of time. and use prescription drugs and legal drugs in way more dangerous situations than illicit drugs. I am happy to live in a country that at least gives us a little more choice and responsibility than the one down south.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Punative tax evasion penalities is a good thing, everyone needs to pay their fair share. I also think that Canada should go after these people harder, and lump them in with people that don't pay off their student loans.

I agree these people should pay! But I don't think they should wind up in jail for years for it. Fine them, lien them, repo them, good! But the fact that the U.S. puts people in jail for it, shows that the land rights in the land of the free, are about as bad as the monarchies before them.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Highest Prison Population - I have no issues with that, in a lot of ways I think Canada needs to increase its prison population, in terms of public safety, I would rather be safe then soft on crime.

Canada is safer than the U.S. with a much lower prison population. Prison does not deter crime. Only suitable living conditions, FREEDOMS and happiness are reliable deterrents. But ultimately, Canada is safer, with a lower prison population and 'softer' laws. So are all those wacky European nations. Nuff said.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Canada's population (~35 million) is about equal to the largest state (California) and is almost double that of New York State (19 million).

The last time I looked it up was about 10-15 years ago when Canada and New York State were about 22 million respectively. Admittedly, even at that time, the figures might have been outdated.

...or maybe I'm just confused and should have said California instead of New York...

Regardless, I think the underlying point is still valid.

Edit: Yeah, just did some quick research and it appears that I was on a steady diet of acid and crack in the 90s, since NY State's population was never anywhere near Canada's. It must have been California, and I just got it mixed up.

[Devils'Advocate]

From http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/unchildrenqa0502.htm

The most significant contradiction between the convention and U.S. law and practice is in relation to the death penalty. The Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits the use of the death penalty for offenses committed before the age of eighteen. However, twenty-two U.S. states allow executions of juvenile offenders, and currently there are eighty-two juvenile offenders on death row in the United States. In the last five years, nine executions of juvenile offenders were carried out in the United States, and two more are scheduled in the next month. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Iran are the only other states to have carried out such executions in the last three years. During the negotiations for the Special Session, the European Union, supported by numerous other governments, sought the inclusion of language prohibiting the use of the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole for crimes committed by children. The United States, joined only by Iran, rejected the proposal.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

The last time I looked it up was about 10-15 years ago when Canada and New York State were about 22 million respectively. Admittedly, even at that time, the figures might have been outdated.

...or maybe I'm just confused and should have said California instead of New York...

Regardless, I think the underlying point is still valid.

Edit: Yeah, just did some quick research and it appears that I was on a steady diet of acid and crack in the 90s, since NY State's population was never anywhere near Canada's. It must have been California, and I just got it mixed up.

I was about to reply but someone beat me to it before.

What you posted was a popular misconception. I knew better because our Jr. High social investigated that misconception.

For some reason that floated around a lot then. I don't know why. Maybe more U.S. boasting flooded north?

Like the misconception we'd be defenseless without them and this that and the other. (Yeah I know our military sucks, but our best position is fair ((and sometimes meek)) foreign policy. Really if anyone attacked Canada, what do you think the rest of the world would think? It's doubtful we need to tie ourselves to missile shields and such)

For the record I am for further military spending and improvements. Just against the theory that the U.S. defends us out of concern. If they do defend us at all, it's only cause of interest to them.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

From http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/unchildrenqa0502.htm

[/size][/font]

Great find, now it makes a little more sense!

Red square the man!