Friday 26 March 2010

What's wrong with Children's Rights?

Laudable idea, children's rights, isn't it?

Really, without children having rights, I wouldn't be allowing my two to stay up late or to buy what they want with their own money. I would be tempted to sell them into slavery to fund my world cruise.

Badman, of course, defends our children's rights to, well, be talked to by strangers in their own homes. He defends their right to go to school, whether or not the children actually wish to. He wishes to bypass a parent's right to speak for his or her own child - and it is ridiculous to expect that any parent should be cognizant of his or her child's ideas, thoughts and feelings - to manipulate the gift of children's rights to - er - exploit children's inability to reason out an ulterior motive on the part of an 'authority'.

Children's rights are a part of this government's desire to 'safeguard' children. Not all children apparently though.

The Children's Rights Alliance for England (CRAE's) legal director, Katy Swaine said:

"The UK’s readiness to lock up children and keep them in unsafe conditions – whether in prison or immigration detention - is a national scandal of which we should all feel deeply ashamed. Unless the present Government takes urgent action, its legacy will be to leave us with thousands of vulnerable children locked up unnecessarily in unsafe conditions, with still no public inquiry into any child death in custody nor into the unlawful use of physical force on children. How long must children wait before the Government finds the courage to stand up for them and meet its legal obligations?

High aspirations – for all children?

All the main political parties express high aspirations for the nation’s children. However, these aspirations do not always extend to all children. In his 2007 Children’s Plan, the UK’s first Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families set out a ten-year strategy for making England the ‘best place in the world for children and young people to grow up’. This cannot be achieved until the challenge of reforming the juvenile justice system is wholeheartedly taken on by Government at the highest level, and until children’s best interests are truly prioritised in the immigration system.

Following the tragic death of Baby Peter, the Government has again keenly focused attention on improvements to the child protection system, recognising that the best way to keep children safe is to respect their rights – including their right to be heard. However, despite 30 child deaths in custody since 1990 and overwhelming evidence of the harm caused to children by immigration detention, we have so far seen nothing like the same strong leadership from Government Ministers on behalf of children deprived of their liberty.

Immigration detention of children – a national scandal

They pushed me on the floor and got my hands behind me… then they took me to the van. I was on my own in the van and I didn’t know what was happening to my family. (11 year-old child, UK, 2009)

In 2008 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child criticised the UK for its continued detention of children and young people for immigration purposes. Yet despite heavy criticism and clear evidence that detaining children and their families is deeply damaging for children and young people, the Government’s policy remains unchanged. "

http://www.crae.org.uk/news-and-events/news/why-do-they-have-to-put-us-in-cages-girl-aged-11-uk-2009.html

Once again, it is only SOME children who have rights or whose rights are respected. Those of home educators'. Our children are in a privileged position indeed.

And, again:

"Official figures show that children are restrained an average of 656 times a month in the English and Welsh juvenile secure estate. Two inspectorate reports published this year reveal that shocking restraint practices continue in child prisons. In relation to HMYOI Cookham Wood, inspectors describe ‘an unsafe and poorly controlled environment’ with high levels of use of force and a ‘safeguarding policy’ which remains ‘largely unimplemented.’

Every Child Matters? Well, only when they are being used as political footballs.

Leaving aside the fact that the average evolved state finds it abhorrent in the extreme to maltreat children in any way, even when the children are being punished, does the fact that home educated children would, under another Labour government, be regimented and overlooked add anything to the home educated child's life. Apparently not, says American research (obtained from super-blogger Kelly Green and Gold):

" The authors of this study find no evidence from their analysis that supports the claim that states should exercise more regulation of homeschool families and students in order to assure better academic success in general or improved higher-education success in particular. On the contrary, the findings of this study are consistent with other research findings that homeschool students perform well academically – typically above national averages on standardized achievement tests and at least on par with others on college-admissions tests – and do so regardless of whether they live in a state that applies low, moderate, or high governmental regulation of homeschooling.”

http://www.academicleadership.org/emprical_research/State_Regulation_of_Homeschooling_and_Homeschoolers_SAT_Scores.shtm

So, given five minutes or so of touring the internet, Mr. Badman, there is evidence to suggest that bug-eyed inspectors make not a jot or a tittle worth of difference to the process of home education. Isn't that evidence that it should be dropped? The whole idea should be kicked into the long grass and forgotten, along with manicuring all our green spaces, thereby contaminating eco-systems, and removing benches near beauty spots where elderly people are happy to spend some time enjoying the views.

Even this - the European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights - says that the child, after expressing his or her views has the right to be informed of the possible consequences of compliance with these views and the possible consequences of any decision, not just to be consulted or to express his or her views (and then be ignored) :

A. Procedural rights of a child
Article 3 – Right to be informed and to express his or her views in proceedings
A child considered by internal law as having sufficient understanding, in the case of proceedings before a judicial authority affecting him or her, shall be granted, and shall be entitled to request, the following rights:
to receive all relevant information;
to be consulted and express his or her views;
to be informed of the possible consequences of compliance with these views and the possible consequences of any decision. "

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/html/160.htm

The intention of this convention is quite clearly to be informed and instructed by the child's opinions, not just to manoevre a child into saying what you wish the child to say.

From the magnificent book, What's Wrong with Children's Rights:

"... the law should refrain from intruding on the ordinary practices of adults responsible for children."

I believe it can be argued that many children in many countries need the protection of the United Nations Rights of the Child. I think it can also be said that the United Kingdom, other than for incarcerated children, does not need the protection of the UNCRC. In elevating children's rights above parental duties, we run the risk of losing the cohesion that a family gives and the circle of protection and safety that the majority of familes afford their young, especially from the overzealous depradations of the state.

5 comments:

  1. thankyou what a fantastic post

    ReplyDelete
  2. I believe it can be argued that many children in many countries need the protection of the United Nations Rights of the Child.

    You can believe it can be argued, but can you argue it from the basic principles of of logic and morality? Other people in other countries might think that you are abusing your daughter because you allow her to go out in the street with her hair and face uncovered. Who are we to take as the correct and ultimate interpreter of the imaginary 'children's rights' and what children 'need to be protected from'? This is an important question.

    Should we have a vote on it at the international level, with the UN at the center perhaps? You believe that the UN should be the body that protects children in other countries. Fine. In a democratic vote on what children's rights should be and what the UN needs to protect children from world-wide (including 'your' children), your vote would be drowned out by billions of other people whose views are anathema to you.

    Be very careful about what you believe, and who you think should have the power to protect generic and abstract 'children' in other people's countries; your country is 'other people's countries' to people in other countries, and you and your ideas are as alien to them as they are to you.

    I think it can also be said that the United Kingdom, other than for incarcerated children, does not need the protection of the UNCRC.

    Of course you would say that, just as the people living in Saudi Arabia would say that their sons and daughters, under their normal circumstances, do not need the protection of the UNCRC. You have to understand that your culture is not morally superior to any other, and that if you accept the UN as the arbiter of what is right and wrong, your culture is TOAST, since the majority of people in this world are not Anglo Saxon, Judeo Christian people.

    In elevating children's rights above parental duties, we run the risk of losing the cohesion that a family gives and the circle of protection and safety that the majority of familes afford their young, especially from the overzealous depradations of the state

    You mean 'THEY' of course and not 'WE'.

    If that is true, then you need to be able to argue your position without referring to shared values or common sense; that is exactly what other people are relying on as the basis of their arguments that are being tilted against you.

    The UN is a very dangerous, evil organisation that is going to destroy your rights and your family. All awake people are against its immoral and unjustifiable influence. It is not a useful servant, it seeks to be your absolute master, and all people who desire to live free loathe it and resist its influence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. it seems to me that the reason there is so much confusion over "children's rights" is that there is deliberate obfuscation on the matter. It is not so much that natural law is misunderstood as it has been deliberately put aside.
    I have seen those who argue that a Judao/Christian underpinning of natural law is needed but this isn't so as pagans like Hipocrates, Aristotle and too a lesser extent Plato understood natural law as did Boethius (although there are those who think he was heavily influenced by St Benedict so perhaps he isn't a good 'pagan' to use).
    Children do have rights but until they are of the age of reason (and that's a debatable age) their parents have a primary responsibility to them to protect those rights; the state is the parent of last resort and we know it tends to be a pretty awful parent.

    I treat the UN with extreme suspicion and doubt the "rights of the child" because what the State or UN thinks it gives it also thinks it can remove.
    We see inalienable rights being removed all the time. It is hardly any wonder that there is so much child abuse when those who put themselves in authority use moveable goals to pretend to protect children.
    Communist Russia refused to use the word "person" in their legislation I heard in a Uni lecture once, because "personhood" implies inalienable rights and socialist Govt don't like that.

    The children in care and YOIs are not going to get attention because it would cost and they don't look good in adverts do they?
    Gosh I am going on sorry. I'll stop it now :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Children do have rights but until they are of the age of reason (and that's a debatable age) their parents have a primary responsibility to them to protect those rights; the state is the parent of last resort

    I simply do not agree with this. The state is not the parent of last resort for me or billions of people on earth. Of course, the number of people understanding this has nothing to do with wether or not it is true.

    Children have rights, but only those rights that adults have. This fact can be constructed from first principles; it is not just an assertion.

    I suggest over and over that anyone thinking about these subjects be careful not to repeat assertions and common sense because these are holes through which the state can put its hooks. For example, the idea that 'the state is the parent of last resort'. Libertarians do not believe that people need to live with, organise via or tolerate a state at all in the first place. I do not accept that we need a state for anything whatsoever, so to say that we need the state to be a parent to children as a last resort doesn't work from the off as far as I am concerned.

    Everyone can believe whatever they like of course, as long as they do not try and make me obey them with force. And that is the thing that people who believe there needs to be a state as the parent of last resort cannot reconcile; they are for violence against people who do not believe what they believe, and they also overtly shun violence in their personal lives.

    That is a contradiction that needs to be resolved before you can deal honestly with this subject and any subject where you concede that there needs to be a state. If you concede that there needs to be a state, then you must also concede that you are violent.

    and nice people like you are not violent! :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry I wasn't clear; I certainly don't believe we NEED the state to be parent of last resort. We don't NEED the state to parent at all-as I said; the state is appalling as a parent.
    But as things are now the state is supposed to ONLY be the parent of last resort- where a child is taken into care for good reason.

    I believe in subsidiarity so in my worldview children who cannot live with their parents should be allowed to live with another family who shouldn't need to pass a medical exam, or have their cooking skills, religious views, or age of furniture assessed by "the state".
    I am an old fashioned lass who would happily take in a child who needed love and care-only thanks to 'the state' I would not be able to do so.
    So yes, I agree.
    My comment on the age of reason is that a child cannot be fully responsible for protecting his rights until he is old enough. So I protect my child's right to life until s/he can do so independently for example.

    ReplyDelete