Country Living Series

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Somalia (cough) signs the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Talk about hypocrisy!

For those who haven't been following this issue, the UN (supported by such loyalists (choke) as Nancy Pelosi) is pressuring the U.S. to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a ridiculous piece of bullsh*t that would breach the sovereignty of America and legally interfere with the ability of parents to raise their children as they see fit. has been fighting to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed that would protect us from this nonsense. They're well worth supporting.

Somalia to Ratify CRC, U.S. to Stand Alone

UNICEF announced on the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child November 20 that Somalia’s transitional federal government (tfg) plans to ratify the Convention, leaving the United States as the lone hold-out among the UN’s member states. According to BBC reports, the tfg only governs a portion of Mogadishu (the capital of Somalia) while pirates and Muslim militias rule the rest of the nation, but the tfg “is backed by the UN and African Union.” So why would an impotent, geographically-challenged, UN-backed transitional government suddenly announce that it plans to ratify a treaty it is powerless to implement? The UN’s announcement is set to increase pressure on the United States to ratify this dangerous convention.

Somalia as a nation is known for its pirates and its child soldiers. Sometimes, we even hear about its child pirates. The idea that the nation is suddenly joining “the good guys” as a signatory to the CRC is preposterous, but it is being set forth by proponents of the treaty. The BBC writes, “The decision to ratify the agreement will be seen as an important symbolic step.” Read the full story here.

We will be contacting Congress again shortly after they return to D.C. Our blitz is just a few weeks away.

January is a great time to start new things and to get around to things you put off last year. If you haven't checked into the need for a Parental Rights Amendment, there is no better time than right now. Please take a few minutes to visit and sign their petition (join the network) to urge Congress to pass this vital Amendment to preserve all of our freedoms by protecting parental rights.


  1. Do parents have an absolute right to raise their children as they see fit? Are there no limits?

  2. Oh sheesh, I can see it coming.

    Quedula, dear, we already *have* laws in this country for people who abuse, neglect, or mistreat their children. We don't need some stuffed shirts in Belgium telling us we can't bring reluctant kids to church, or we can't swat them when they're naughty, or otherwise - yes, I'll say it - raise our kids as we see fit. (Just a reminder: they're OUR kids.)

    Of course, this is from the perspective of a homeschooling family, who is doubtless homeschooling because we have something to hide (insert evil cackle)...


  3. I didn't have you in mind particularly Patrice or outright physical abuse. I was thinking of Islamic fundamentalist parents and mental abuse & indoctrination.

    Incidentally I don't believe parents "own" their children although I know this attitude is common among the religious. All children are born atheists and should be allowed to remain so until they are old enough to choose for themselves as was I.

  4. I've looked at your link Patrice. Very interesting read. Thank you.

    In the UK "spanking" has been illegal for sometime and I am sure this measure has had some effect as one seldom now witnesses it in public. The supporting argument was that the use of even mild violence, by a person in authority towards a child, instils the idea at an early age, that it is an acceptable form of self-expession. Then, as the poet says "Man hands on misery to man".

    Ideas implanted in a child's formative years are very difficult to shift and that is why we are also running this campaign:-

  5. I think we can all agree we are against child abuse. The issue is in HOW abuse is defined, and who is defining it.

    In countries where this has been enacted, parents' have been tied at times from keeping their young people from hanging out with the wrong crowd (the convention grants "freedom of association") or insisting on doing chores on the farm (the convention says a child doesn't have to work if they don't want to). They also have the right to get abortions without the parents knowing their kid is being taken in for major surgery with long term emotional side effects.

    As a parent, I feel it is my duty to gently but firmly guide my young ones towards becoming productive members of society, and that may include at times saying no to them, or having them do something other than play video games all day long, and keeping them from the wrong crowd...but the rights of the child says I don't have the right to do that if my child disagrees with me.

    If you think there is a lot of brats running around in Walmart now, just wait until this passes!

    It seems to me that the social workers of this country have a hard enough time keeping up with cases of REAL abuse, from the number of stories you read in the news about some poor kid who feel through the cracks of the system...They don't need to be practicing the orwellian dictates of this document.

  6. I think people should read the actual Convention rather than rely on the interpretation of which may have other agendas.

    For Example Article14:-

    1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

    2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

    3. 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.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. I get your point Lloyd but should this matter to the US with its written constitution, and where any change in law would be subject to the democratic mandate?

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.