Article 13: A Freedom of Information Act for Children?

If I left things up to my three year-old, he would have no immunizations, eat Sweet Tarts all day, and never go to bed. Obviously a child cannot be trusted to make his own decisions. This is why children are born to adults who can care for them and teach them that what feels good isn’t always the best choice. Parents make decisions for their children and slowly let them have more freedom as the child demonstrates the ability to make wise decisions. Eventually, a child becomes an adult and heads out into the world, hopefully continuing to make those wise decisions he has been taught to make. And though some may stumble at first, our children eventually take flight before our eyes and set off to conquer the world. Article 13 of the UNCRC infringes on the rights of parents to decide what is or is not appropriate information for their children. Although we looked at article 13 as it related to schooling choices, today we’re going to look at it as it relates to your child’s freedom to obtain information.

Article 13 states:

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.

The UNCRC treaty recognizes a child’s inability to make his or her own decisions by making it illegal to prosecute anyone under the age of 18 with the death penalty or a life sentence. Though a child cannot be held responsible before a court of law for his poor decisions, the treaty allows the child the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers.” This obviously isn’t about truly helping our children. The real purpose isn’t to give children true freedom, the real purpose is to give the government the ability to intervene when the child wants to know about anything that the government deems appropriate. It gives the government control over what children can or can’t view instead of leaving that decision up to the parents.

This poses a multitude of problems for the family unit. First, it destroys family traditions by allowing the state to push its own morals and agenda on the family rather than allowing the parents to instill the beliefs and traditions that they hold dear. In fact, it is these traditions that make families feel united and safe within the home. Traditions are part of the make-up of the family and shielding vulnerable children from beliefs and ideas that go against family values is an important part of a parent’s authority. By introducing ideas that go against the family’s values, the government will introduce dissidence within the family unit. It will set parents against children and children against parents, rather than allowing them to be united with their own beliefs.

This treaty allows children to explore whatever beliefs they want, while still under their parents’ roof and even if it goes against the parents’ discretion. This only makes the home a place of strife. It also sets the government as the final authority and undermines parental authority. What stops a political party in power from imposing its own views on the child? This treaty goes out of its way to allow the political opinions of the powers in government to be taught to young, impressionable children who haven’t yet learned how to discern for themselves. A child may not be ready to handle the information he is given. The court is not the best one to decide a child’s readiness for certain types of information. No court knows a child and his maturity level the way that his parents do, therefore parents are the best authority to make this decision, not the courts.

Most disturbing is the fact that the parents dragged before the court are not abusive parents. These are parents who have strong convictions about the way their children should be raised, and exactly what their children should or shouldn’t be exposed to. These are parents like you and me. Keeping certain information from a child until they are old enough to understand and process that information is a wise parenting method. Children are vulnerable to new ideas. Separating fact from fiction is difficult for children. Logic is not a skill that the brain develops until the middle school years. Keeping information from children is an important part of helping them develop into healthy, well-though individuals. When a child becomes an adult he will have access to all of the information he wants, so there is no real danger that the individual will forever be deprived of information. So if this isn’t about harming or abusing children, what is the purpose Article 13? It allows the government to indoctrinate our children at a young, vulnerable age.

The restrictions on the type of information provided to children in this treaty are vague and dangerous. For instance, “respect the rights and reputations of others.” How long before some judge rules that a political opinion that is expressed doesn’t “respect the rights and reputations” of the ruling party? How long before certain religions are banned because they don’t respect the rights and reputations of people of opposite religions? What about the “protection of national security or of public order”? Of course we want our nation to be secure, but what happens when the dissenting views of political parties become an issue of “public order” in the minds of the party that is in control of the government? Then there is “public health and morals.” We’ve already seen that the government is in favor of abortions for the sake of public health. And whose morals are we talking about? Does the UNCRC refer to the parents’ morals, or the morals of the government officials deciding which information your child has access to?

As we’ve seen with the rest of this treaty, it is extremely dangerous. The concepts sound good on paper, but they can be twisted to go against the constitution, and our own laws say that a treaty overrides the constitution. This is why we cannot allow the senate to ratify the UNCRC. Parental rights were understood to be inherent rights when our constitution was crafted. Had the founding fathers seen the direction that today’s world is headed, they certainly would have protected the rights of the family. They never dreamed that the family unit would be under attack from the government. We must stand up for our rights today. Sign the petition for a constitutional amendment that protects parental rights at the Parental Rights website. Tell your friends and family about this movement. The treaty has been defeated in the past, but today so many people are distracted by the state of our nation, that they may not be aware of the other threats to our natural-born freedoms. Please make them aware, and pray that our nation will remain a nation of free men and women.