I read the article, and it made me think that I can’t think of anything like a Childrens’ Bill of Rights. Just basically thinking out loud here but…
Everyone talks about wanting to protect children, but there is no basic framework in place to treat them differently in protecting their individual personhood. Something basic, written in simple language, that a young child can understand, to make sure they are treated fairly and safely. Like a little laminated card you can give children when they get to school.
Children should have some agency in their own care, or to be able to protect other children, but we leave all the legal action in the hands of those who would be the ones causing them harm. It just seems odd to me.
Disclaimer: Not a parent, not Canadian, just someone who came across this and started thinking…
Ahh, no wonder I never heard of this…
From Wikipedia:
The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it. It has been claimed that American opposition to the convention stems primarily from political and religious conservatives.
😔
Most notably, at the time several states permitted the execution and life imprisonment of juvenile offenders, a direct contravention of Article 37 of the convention.
😔😔
During his 2008 campaign for President, Senator Barack Obama described the failure to ratify the convention as “embarrassing” and promised to review the issue but, as President, he never did. No President of the United States has submitted the treaty to the United States Senate requesting its advice and consent to ratification since the US signed it in 1995.
😔😔😔
This would make me feel very alone as a child to know this… 😢
Edit: Been reading more and kinda sad child marriage isn’t part of it. Also corporal punishment should go away too.
Full agreement, but also I think adolescents in particular need defined rights as they grow into adulthood. A 5 year old, 8 year old, and 10 year old need similar rights, but a 14 year old needs a 4 year path to adulthood that makes clear how their rights and responsibilities in the eyes of the law increase. In my country the only place a 16 year old is an adult is on trial.
Tried to look up where you were referring, and the first few results all come up for where I live…
Pennsylvania is one of only 13 states with no limit on how young a juvenile can be tried in adult court and exposed to adult jails and prisons. In Lawrence County in 2009, for example, 11-year-old Jordan Brown was charged in adult court for the fatal shooting of his father’s fiancee. He was too young to shave but faced a mandatory life sentence.
Why would it be different than the rights of adults? We dont need to write the same thing twice.
I think mainly because they don’t have the same means to seek help or protection the way adults do.
Kids can’t drive, they don’t have money, they don’t have the education to know their rights or research laws. The world is built for adults.
Asking parents to be that advocate for the child can be a conflict of interest if the parent is the one causing the issue. It seems like when the police investigate their own conduct.
We make different rules to protect people due to physical or mental disparity, and children and typically less physically and mentally able than most adults. And they have no financial means on top of that.
Does everything need to change? No. But adults don’t need to worry about forced marriage, genital mutilation, or being beat up for me misbehaving or if someone is just in a bad mood near as much as kids need to, and again, their current first line and sometimes only line of protection may be the one doing that to them.
I’m personally getting really sick and tired of anyone’s trying to decide what the ‘best interests’ are of another person.
I haven’t read the article…yet (after a skim I agree with the article). I really don’t know how to feel about the gay/trans issue as I’m fine with my kids being gay or trans, but I don’t want anyone dictating to me what religion or philosophy I raise my kids with, so I feel like I shouldn’t get to say what the nut jobs believe it what they tell their children (to a point)… This is tough
You aren’t a parent are you? Cause children will actually hurt themselves badly, and really do need active care at an early age.
For older children setting boundaries for your children so they aren’t assholes is “determining best interests”.
I don’t want people telling me what religion or philosophy to raise my kids in, I kind of think of this as parents rights. Of course as kids get to be adults those go away.
There’s limits to this. If someone’s philosophy/religion says you should abuse your children then the state should intervene. We shouldn’t accept parents rights to beat, bully, stone, drug, cripple, deprive them an education, deprive them of social interactions etc. Many of these things are represented in literature related to many major religions.
I shouldn’t get to say what the nut jobs believe it what they tell their children
Verbal abuse and other forms of damage parents can enact by just “saying what they believe” are a mental health hazards. We as a society came to an agreement that parents don’t have the “liberty” of aggravating health issues on their kids. No one is forbidding parents from teaching kids to be creationists, but a kid suffering with gender dysphoria needs care and parents don’t have the right to deny that care.
So the “(to a point)” is the crucial bit here, and it’s exactly that point where this discussion is centered.
it’s none of your business how much i want to decide what other peoples best interests are or not
Absolutely. The laws are about enabling parents’ Charter rights violations against their own children.
There’s no such thing as ‘parents’ rights’
Parents have a right to raise their children in accordance with their own values
Great start!
Finish the thought.
. But that doesn’t give them the right to override their children’s own rights under the Charter, notably their children’s rights to life and security of the person.
Parents have the right to teach their values not as a product of being parents, but as a result of their individual rights to freedom of expression. What they don’t have is a right to enforce those values on their child if their child rejects them.
The challenge with this is that kids are, for lack of a better term, fucking stupid. Children intrinsically reject all sorts of ideas and values that a functioning adult is expected to have. For instance, sharing, patience, kindness, and virtue. These have to be taught to a child, sometimes through a long and difficult process.
It also doesn’t help that these are vague ideas. For many people, virtue and religion are tied together as one. At what point does a child become autonomous enough to make their own decisions about their values?
I’m all for limiting the idea of overbearing parents, but defining terms and details is going to be nearly impossible.
The thing is that this is actually not a vague situation. No one is arguing that parents aren’t able to teach their kids right from wrong. The issue is when the parents’ values come into conflict with the child’s own inherent right to express themselves as one of the protected classes specifically outlined in section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Most topically along sex/gender lines, but also many others.
Thankfully being an asshole is not a protected class so we are free to teach people to not be that.
At what point does a child become autonomous enough to make their own decisions about their values?
Middle school-ish. It might make sense to tie it to the age of criminal responsibility (that is, the age at which you’re assumed to have enough understanding of right and wrong to be charged with a crime in your own right), which, in Canada, is 12.
Children aren’t stupid, adults are inconsiderate to how a child functions.
A child is a little person who, just like adults, understands concepts like good, bad, freedom, imprisonment, hungry, tired, etc. the problem is that children are not given a document that speaks their language, the words we use with kids is radically different from daily life. And when a kid uses a grown up word or phrase, we don’t compliment them on their defr use of language - we interrogate them with “where did you learn that” or “who told you that”. Imagine if we just did something incredible, like publish a phD dissertation and instead of celebration you were grilled with question that might get you in trouble. Or, at best, the adult is happy that the word was used but ignores or doesn’t bring it up again? All that work from the kid and they get nothing for it but more work. So why tell an adult at all? Why show off their ability to learn if it gives them nothing?
Adults also use big words for no good reason. They are oblivious to the fact that kids didn’t get 12 years of vocab, reinforced through tests and essays. If adults used simpler words, it would not only solve the communication gap between kids and adults, it would encourage a more clear understanding of what words mean to adults. Calling something egregious is fine but saying “for no reason” means the same thing. Adults do not use words that they teach to children, so ultimately kids view adults as using some crazy legalese or second language to talk to each other and make arrangements.
Clean up the language and celebrate kids as people who are always learning, and they will be happy to communicate to you and with you. That’s how we, as adults, can use our experience to help protect kids with their own input. It’s how kids are taught to be wary of adults - strange danger is out and communication is now key. Talking with grown ups they know to confirm what they are being asked helps make kids who aren’t scared of new things. In fact, they will happily embrace the new stuff as long as they know what to expect.
Parents have all kinds of rights simply because they are the parents and not just because of general rights like freedom of expression. Obviously. If you disagree I’ll happily choose the name of your next kid. Because, you know, parents have no rights besides those everyone has anyways.
I get that the article is trying to make a point for children’s rights, I fully support that, but the choice for a headline is really, really bad. If you care about the matter you should not defend that headline because it makes the “pro child rights” side look silly. As if the only way for children to have rights was denying the existence of rights of parents. That does not help anyone.
Check which community you are posting this to.
His point about the headline stands. They directly contradict themselves in the very first two sentences.
There is such a thing as parents rights, but those rights have limitations, just like every right we hold.
… so in Canada a stranger can name your kids? Or, you know, maybe the parents?
As long as those values do not override those of other parents, go at it.
Parents should always have the right to remove their child from a situation they do not agree with. They should never have the right to tell other parents or teachers how to teach other children.
Parents should always have the right to remove their child from a situation they do not agree with.
At some point, the child would start thinking for themselves and their decisions should be given value too, as long as it isn’t illegal or detrimental. Far too often, we hear of children wanting vaccine shots but parents not allowing them to.
Oh of course, I feel like it goes without saying that this is in reference to young school-age children.
My personal opinion, would be that the age cut off for where a child’s rights supersede the opinions of their parents would probably be 13 or 14.
Honestly the less rights parents have the better, IMO. They need certain rights just to operate but man, some of them are very shit people.
Do parents have the right to censor access to the internet of their children?
Put another way: do young people have the right to access all the books at a library?
For both, yes, parents have the freedom to raise their children within the limits set forth by the law including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So parents can (try to) prevent their children from accessing pornography, but that doesn’t mean parents have carte blanche to violate their human rights under the Charter. Parents can’t legally beat or sexually abuse their children, either.
There have always been limits to parental authority when they violate children’s human rights.
The OP is wrong.
Parents have a “duty of care”. That means they can enforce rules which are for the wellbeing of their children, even apply punishment - without having to take the issue to Court.
Schools have a “duty of care”. That means that for an incident which in the public which would involve the Court system - such as assault - punishment can be executed by the school wihout a Court order.
