Did someone call for me?
Posted on 08/12/2006 10:30:50 AM PDT by wagglebee
A couple in Brussels has been threatened with criminal neglect for schooling their children at home, and a U.S. expert on the issue told WorldNetDaily the case actually could pose a threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Constitution.
That's because if the basis for the legal arguments being made by Belgian prosecutors ever would be accepted in – or imposed upon -- the United States, that fact would make the U.N. protocol equal to the Constitution.
In the case at hand, Alexandra Cohen has published a piece on the Brussels Journal website that her husband, Paul Belien, the website editor, was called to police headquarters, questioned, and threatened with criminal negligence counts because their children are homeschooled.
"He was told that the Belgian authorities are of the opinion that, as a homeschooler, he has not adequately educated his children and, hence, is neglecting his duty as a parent, which is a criminal offense," she wrote.
What terrifies U.S. homeschool education experts is the authorities' decision to cite the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as a legal argument.
That 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 192 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power.
"(The treaty) would become the supreme law of the land," Chris Klicka, the senior counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association, told WND. In conflicts with the Constitution, the treaty easily could prevail, he said.
"Our worst fears are being realized as we see these other European countries feeling the pressure because they did sign on and enter into this treaty," he said. "Britain, for instance, had a report done by the (U.N.) Committee of 10 and they got chastised because they were allowing corporal punishment."
Although signed under the Clinton Administration, the U.S. Senate never has ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.
The Convention is an international treaty that creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child. It is monitored by the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, which conceivably has enforcement powers.
Under the U.N. protocol, a child could have an abortion without telling her parents, while at the same time forcing them to pay for it. A generic description of the treaty calls it "child-centric." But Klicka's HSLDA is more specific.
The U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause requires that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land," the HSLDA said.
That would mean any state law relating to child custody, the family, education, adoption, child pornography and dozens of other issues could be nullified in an instant, the group said.
Under the protocol, children would be vested with freedom of expression, so that "any attempts (by parents) to prevent their children from interacting with material parents deem unacceptable is forbidden."
Reaching to the far end of that logic would produce this result: your 6-year-old wants Playboy magazine, or even to visit a Playboy club, and you pay for it.
Parents who fail would be subjected to "identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment, and follow-up."
Klicka said the HSLDA is not directly involved in the Brussels case, although he has contacted the couple's legal counsel and has offered assistance if needed.
In the report by Cohen, she said the couple's four oldest children were homeschooled, and have moved on to the university level.
"Our youngest child is also being homeschooled, but she has yet to obtain her high school certificate, for which she is currently taking exams," she said. Those exams will be taken before the nation's Central Examination Board, of the Ministry of Education.
"The Belgian Constitution, written in 1831, allows parents to homeschool," she wrote. "The CEB exists to enable people who have not attended or who have failed school to obtain an official high school certificate."
The number of homeschooled students in Belgium, although small in number at about 500, has quadrupled in the past five years "as parents are seceding from the official schools where drugs and violence are rampant and pupils are indoctrinated with political correctness," she wrote.
That, she said, "clearly bothers the authorities," who recently introduced a legislative plan that cites the U.N. protocol and obliges homeschooling parents to sign "an official 'declaration of homeschooling' in which they agree to school their children 'respecting the respect (sic) for the fundamental human rights and the cultural values of the child itself and others.'"
She and her husband refused, and now the Ministry of Education believes they have violated the law, she said.
The only response from the Minister of Education, Frank Vandenbroucke, came through a spokesman who said in a local newspaper that in Belgium homeschoolers are required to sign a document that requires them to follow the protocols of the U.N. Convention.
"These parents have not done this. This is why the ministry has started an inquiry," he said.
Klicka noted that even if the Senate never ratifies the protocol, it could be dumped on the United States by the ruling of an activist judge.
"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," Cohen wrote.
In an earlier critique, HSLDA President Michael Farris noted the protocol essentially would move any rights that parents now have to social workers, who could make any decision concerning children – and force compliance.
"I don't buy this ... our Constitution trumps any U.N. treaty."
I am with you. Activist judges cannot enact law, and nobody has to follow illegal laws. Any person trying to enforce illegal laws is in violation of the law themselves.
I think that their WND) interpretation is the realistic one based on recent history, even though yours is the proper one based on facts and extremely uncommon common sense.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington, speech of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790.
What they leave unsaid is:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
"-- which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; --"
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ----
Only treaties made in "pursuance" of the goals [the legitimate authority] of the Constitution are valid. We have never given our legislators the authority to make treaties or laws that subvert our freedoms.
The HSLDA is hyping the issue.
I think that their WND) interpretation is the realistic one based on recent history,
Yep.. -- Unfortunately, far too many people believe that their 'realistic' opinion trumps our constitution.
even though yours is the proper one based on facts and extremely uncommon common sense.
Thanks.
Just so there is no confusion, I meant 'realistic' in that is likely how the court would rule, not that it would be right or even obeyed.
Long ago, I decided to do what was right, even if it weren't necessarily lawful.
What matters to a man walking down the street is what is enforced, whether it is lawful or not. So, in that sense, it doesn't matter what the law says, only what the government says. Think about the recent property rights decision in the SC. In the end, those people lost their homes even though it was the result of a clearly unconstitutional decision, even though they resisted.
We used to have a long tradition of ignoring unlawful laws. I think that has been indoctrinated out of most Americans by the government school system. Americans for the most part have been turned into a compliant herd. Most government educated Americans have no idea what the Constitution says, and too many of the ones that do don't care what it says.
Oh for God's sake! Consider the source! Worldnetdaily.com.
The Supreme Court just ruled that the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists even though it was never even presented to either the President or the Senate.
Activist Judges do not follow anything they don't want to.
Well as of today the U.S.S.C. hasn't ruled on this yet.
Yes, things are nuts out there.
That is of little comfort when you see who is on the court.
Here's another take on that Belgian case and what it could mean to us.
If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Are you a homeschooler looking for advice from other homeschoolers? Visit our Free Republic Homeschoolers' Forum 2006-2007.
on please
"Yeah ... but still WND doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation. They tend to take the hysterical extreme route."
Unlike the more "fair and balanced" New York Slimes?
LOL
W
Did someone call for me?
This is a little too far out for me to believe especially since we haven't even signed onto this idiotic treaty.
I put you on the list.
I concur. Plus it's a moot point since Congress has not signed off on this treaty.
Our Constitution is a pact between the states and the federal government. All powers of the federal government were ceded to them by the states and those specific powers are listed in the U.S. Constitution. Any power the federal government does not have was retained by the states.
No treaty can give the federal government any additional power.
My understanding is that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that persons taking no active part in the hostilities are entitled to the minimal protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention if they are detained in the territory of a signatory nation (which Afghanistan is).
In this specific case, the detainee was a young Yemeni national named Salim Ahmed Hamdan who had worked as a driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden. He was not accused of directly participating in, or coordinating, any terrorist acts (though he was charged with "conspiracy to commit terrorism" because of his association with bin Laden -- which was a different issue addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the same ruling).
Because of that, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he was entitled to the protection from Common Article 3(d). "The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the military tribunal created and convened by Bush's Executive branch to deal with the terrorists did not meet the requirement of a "regularly constituted court". But they added that if Congress voted to approve this special court, then that was just fine by them.
I think they are playing fast and loose with the Constitution and what it actually says. I read it to mean that the Constitution, federal law and federal treaties overrule state law. I am sure a legal mind can correct me and enlighten us.
Eastbound gave us an excellent constitutional answer..
I'm pinging FR's foremost majority rule 'states rightist' to give us the anti-constitutionalist's view.
paulsen wrote:
I concur.
Plus it's a moot point since Congress has not signed off on this treaty.
Our Constitution is a pact between the states and the federal government. All powers of the federal government were ceded to them by the states and those specific powers are listed in the U.S. Constitution. Any power the federal government does not have was retained by the states.
No treaty can give the federal government any additional power.
Our Constitution is a pact between the people in their states and the federal government. All powers of the federal government and of the States were ceded to them by the people and those powers are specified in the U.S. Constitution.
Any Constitutional power the federal government does not have, or power prohibited by the Constitution to the States, was retained by the states, or reserved to the people.
Nice answer paulsen. You seem to "concur", -- yet you fail to mention the powers retained by the people; -- or that you do not accept the fact that the first ten Amendments apply to the States as our supreme law, and that the rights in them are not to be infringed upon, -- by either fed, state, or local governments.
Very slick, but your basic anti-constitutional stance is still evident.
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.