Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 05/25/2006 4:09:21 PM PDT by wagglebee
PURCELLVILLE, Virginia, May 25, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A home schooling association is warning that the U.S., and even more so other countries, faces the threat that home schooling may be deemed illegal due to international law.
The Home School Legal Defense Association's (HSLDA) Chairman and General Counsel, Michael Farris, warns that even though the U.S. has never ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the convention may still be binding on citizens because of activist judges.
According to a new "interpretation" of what is known as "customary international law," some U.S. judges have ruled that, even though the U.S. Senate and President have never ratified the Convention, it is still binding on American parents. "In the 2002 case of Beharry v. Reno, one federal court said that even though the Convention was never ratified, it still has an 'impact on American law'," Farris explained. "The fact that virtually every other nation in the world has adopted it has made it part of customary international law, and it means that it should be considered part of American jurisprudence."
Under the Convention, severe limitations are placed on a parent's right to direct and train their children. As explained in a 1993 Home School Court Report by the HSLDA, under Article 13, parents could be subject to prosecution for any attempt to prevent their children from interacting with material they deemed unacceptable. Under Article 14, children are guaranteed "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" - in other words, children have a legal right to object to all religious training. And under Article 15, the child has a right to "freedom of association." "If this measure were to be taken seriously, parents could be prevented from forbidding their child to associate with people deemed to be objectionable companions," the HSLDA report explained.
Farris explains that, in 1995, "the United Kingdom was deemed out of compliance" with the Convention "because it allowed parents to remove their children from public school sex-education classes without consulting the child". Farris argues that, "by the same reasoning, parents would be denied the ability to homeschool their children unless the government first talked with their children and the government decided what was best. This committee would even have the right to determine what religious teaching, if any, served the child's best interest."
Farris suggests that there are several solutions to the dangers presented by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for Americans. "First, Congress has the power to define customary international law. It also has the power to modify the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress needs to address this issue of judicial tyranny by enacting legislation that limits the definition of customary international law to include only provisions of treaties that Congress has ratified."
"Second, Congress could pass an amendment to the Constitution, stating explicitly that no provision of any international agreement can supersede the constitutional rights of an American citizen. Two such amendments have been proposed in Congress, but neither was ratified."
"Third, the specific threat to parental rights can be solved by putting a clear parents' rights amendment into the black and white text of the United States Constitution."
In countries like the UK and Canada, which have already ratified the Convention, it is less clear what measures can be adopted, although similar measures are likely possible.
Read the 1993 Home School Court Report by HSLDA:
http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/unicef/homeschoolalert.h...
See related LifeSiteNews.com and Interim coverage:
New UN Convention a Threat to Canadians
http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/unicef/newunconvention.h...
Focus On The Family Calls Un Child Convention "A Danger"
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2001/jun/01060703.html
U.S. Homeschooling Parents May be Forced to Teach Against Their Moral Principles
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/oct/03100607.html
That's the best!!!
For years Chuck Baldwin has warned us of this and other infringements on our rights. FR will not allow posting of the comments from Chuck Baldwin, one of several reasons you do not see more than one or two comments a week from me.
Yes, you're right. They sure do. What's next should be us using a firm boot to the posterior as the U.N. leaves the U.S. What's next will find us bowing lower and lower before the defiled organization.
bravo - well said
It may seem binding to some but it will be utterly and completely unenforceable.
Just see what happens when a UN representative in a baby blue helmet comes to lay down the law to an American family.
Farris must have run out of tinfoil. Or maybe he's just trying to do some fundraising?
Re your post #3 about getting the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U,S......I couldn't agree with you more. (but I did almost spew coffee all over my computer over the way you said it).
It's all part of this New World Order crap the "elites" have been trying to get us entangled with, with world govt. as their ultimate goal.
It's terrifying to see how close they have came. Even Uncle George looks like he wants to unify us with Canada and Mexico. (As a begining here in North America with a goal of having a "EU of the Americas")
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
You know--if we don't do something soon, this once proud nation will be but a memory.
Amen!
""This "silver lining" in all of this is the United Nations' utter inability to enforce their anti-Americanism.""
No difference between the two parties PING
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.