UN Report: Sweden

Parental Inquisition

Sweden and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

There’s an old saying that once you reach the top, you can only go down.

For the nation of Sweden, however, reaching the top was only the beginning.

Sweden has long been regarded as a model nation, whose policies and laws are at the cutting-edge of international thinking on children’s rights. Sweden was the first nation to completely ban corporal punishment, the first to make sex education a mandatory feature of its educational curriculum, and the first to offer working parents free child-care for all children between the ages of 1 and 12. Thus, it should come as no surprise that on June 29, 1990, Sweden became the ninth nation in the world – and the first industrialized Western country – to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

And apparently, such innovations were only the beginning.

The modern regime in Sweden enjoys broad discretionary authority over parents, and is presently engaged in what Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson has termed a “parental inquisition.”

Vaccines, Autism, and Parents

TRENTON, NJ — Hundreds rallied at the New Jersey Statehouse on Thursday, October 16, to protest a new state law adding four more vaccines to the state’s list of mandatory inoculations, already the longest such list in the nation.  Various reports estimate the crowd of parents and children at 300 to 500, gathered to draw attention to the new regulation, which requires for the first time that children from 6 months to five years of age receive an influenza vaccine to attend day-care and public schools.

The debate over the benefits and dangers of vaccines is not new, but it is drawing new attention.  First there is incessant advertising promoting Gardasil as a vaccine against the human papilloma virus, which in turn is purported to cause certain kinds of cervical cancer.  The new drug is being mandated for sixth graders by various school systems across the country, and has been added to the list of vaccines required by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for all women between ages 11 and 26 seeking citizenship.  Yet, the New England Journal of Medicine warns that the drug only went through five years of clinical studies – much shorter than normal — while it takes twice that long for HPV to result in cervical cancer.

Then there are Hollywood starlets Jenny McCarthy and Amanda Peet, who exchanged barbs in recent months, the former claiming the possibility of a link between vaccine preservatives and autism, the latter opining that “parents who don’t vaccinate their children are parasites.”  McCarthy has recently released a book on the subject.

According to an APP.com September 23 article on vaccinations, two candidates in the up-coming presidential election have also touched briefly on the issue, including Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. 

Should Parents Decide Curfew?

According to an August 16 story from The Hartford Courant, Hartford  (Connecticut) hopes to stem a wave of teen crime by reviving a curfew law already on the books.  Authorities believe the 9:00 pm deadline for minors under 18 to be off the streets will reduce crime, though many residents express doubts.  And teens with a legitimate reason to be out past the deadline wonder what will become of them.  Will they have to face police on a nightly basis as they take the bus home from work?

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes the law, claiming curfews interfere with parental autonomy.  David McGuire, a lawyer for the Connecticut ACLU chapter, told The Courant the union is considering taking legal action to strike down the intrusive ordinance.

This is not the first time the ACLU has spoken out against curfews.  In a 2003 article of the Cincinnati Enquirer, ACLU of Ohio legal director Raymond Vasvari is quoted as saying, “Whether or not their kids are on the street is a matter the parents should decide.”  The 2003 article focused on a daytime curfew being considered in Springfield Township, Ohio.

Protecting Kids by Preserving a Parent’s Right

According to an August 12 report from KXLY in Spokane, Washington, the Department of Child Protective Services for nearby Colville has come under investigation after a number of parents and legal guardians complained about the department’s practices: removing children from perfectly good homes, splitting families for no apparent reason, and treating legal guardians with great disrespect. Added to parental complaints is a letter by local area physicians claiming they have no confidence in the Colville DCPS office.

All by itself, the story should raise concerns, but Colville is not alone.

There they go again!

As Ronald Reagan used to say when debating political opponents, “There you go again!”

It would be appropriate to say the same thing to the state of California, who is doing its best to undermine the vital role parents play in the lives of their children.

While everyone’s attention has focused on the recent court case In re Rachel L., waiting to see if the right of parents to homeschool their children would be upheld by California courts, tactics of the University of California higher education systems were flying under the radar.

UC officials adopted a policy last year which dictates that students educated with curricula containing even an infinitesimal reference to a biblical worldview will not be permitted to attend a UC school. In the name of tolerance, other religious viewpoints are accepted…just not Christianity.

All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Aside from this clear assault on Christianity, this policy forces parents to choose between their children attending a UC School and their religious convictions.

In essence school officials have declared that all curricula require the approval of UC School.

So any mom or dad who chooses to include any reference to a biblical world view in the home or private education of their children will find that those children are refused admittance to a University of California College.

California parents, you obviously can not be trusted to understand what is in the best interest of your children. You are welcome to teach your children what you will, but they are not welcome to attend classes at a publicly funded university.

Here is a complimentary copy of the US Constitution, yes, the one with the footprints all over it!

There they go again!

Parental Rights Amendment Introduced

Contact your Representative today and urge them to support the Parental Rights Amendment.

The Parental Rights Constitutional Amendment bill has just been introduced in the House of Representatives! Our bill number is H. J. Res 97. You can read the language of the bill by visiting http://thomas.loc.gov and searching for the bill number.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra introduced the proposed constitutional amendment which is designed to preserve and protect parental rights from future erosion. Preserving parental rights for generations to come is an issue that concerns every parent across this nation. That’s why now is the time to get your Congressperson to support this vital bill.

The introduction of the Parental Rights Amendment signals the opening of an important discussion in Congress. So we encourage you to begin engaging Congress on the issue of parental rights today.

TAKE ACTION NOW!

You can contact your member of Congress here.

Write, call or email with a short message urging your member of Congress to stand in support of H. J. Res 97, the Parental Rights Constitutional Amendment. Encourage them to contact Rep. Pete Hoekstra to add their name to a list of potential Co-Sponsors.

And look for more updates as we move forward with this vital effort!

Government-Supervised Parenting

Part I of an In-depth Look at Article 18 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

During our series on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, most of the articles we have considered have focused on the relationship between the state and the child. Article 18 is therefore unique in its emphasis on the responsibilities of parents, and the supervised relationship that these parents have with the state.

Article 18 is also one of the more complex articles in the Convention, divided into three sections that address distinct facets of the relationship between parents and the state. This week, we will focus on the first section, which says that “States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child,” and that parents are primarily responsible for their children. As parents, “the best interests of the child will be their basic concern.”

The danger of Article 18 is that it places an enforceable responsibility upon parents to make child-rearing decisions based on the “best interests of the child,” subjecting parental decisions to second-guessing at the discretion of government agents.

Lunch-Box Nazis?

Australian Parents Furious at Mandatory-Food Policy

Australian parents are wondering “what’s next?” after the government implemented a new childcare center policy that restricts the types of food they can put in their children’s lunchboxes.

The program, called Good for Kids, Good for Life, was recently implemented at more than 300 preschools and day-care centers in the Hunter New England area of Australia to combat childhood obesity. Not only have foods high in fat, salt, and sugar been banned from meals and snacks, but even fruit has been limited: sultanas raisins to one, three-quarter-tablespoon portion, and apples to a half-sized serving.

The government initiative also requires childcare staff to conduct lunchbox audits to ensure that parents comply with strict food policies.

Dr. Phil on separating polygamy sect children from their mothers

Is separating 416 children from their mothers to place them into foster care a good idea – ever? Dr. Phil doesn’t think so. A few quick statistics on the foster care system can erase any notion that these children could have a normal, healthy life once separated from their mothers. Clearly, the polygamy sect puts authorities in a difficult situation. But separating hundreds of children from their mothers and purposefully sending them into a such a potentially turbulent existence – which will likely land the majority of them on the street or in prison – is enough to make any concerned citizen think twice.

King: Let’s turn to the polygamy matter. If the allegations of abuse are true, do you see any problem with all of these children in foster care? Watch Dr. Phil talk with Larry King about the removal of the FLDS children »

 

McGraw: I see huge problems with it, Larry.

A Second Chance in California

Parents across California and the nation were relieved to hear the California Court of Appeals decision last night granting a motion for a rehearing in the ruling that banned homeschooling across the state — unless parents held a teacher’s license qualifying them to teach in public schools. The possibility now exists for changing the decision, when the court holds a new hearing in June. Read more here.