United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 
"...BECAUSE EVERY CHILD IS OUR CHILD." 
    By Reverend Wayne C. Sedlak

   Position Paper Volume 5

   FOREWARNING:

   The subject of this report, THE U.N. CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE
CHILD (UNCRC), is the first report on an immediate threat that carries
deadly potential for the life and sanctity of the historical family
structure. As a function of the "child advocacy" or "children's
liberation movement", its claims appear to be humanitarian on the
surface in the correction of social ills. In reality, it is yet another
classic case of the "cure" being worse than the disease itself. If the
current educational and social reforms sweeping the nation can be
likened to the "rising tide" accompanying an incoming storm, the U.N.
CONVENTION is... the tidal wave!

   "THE TOTAL RESTRUCTURING OF SOCIETY"

   In the fall of 1989, the Governors Conference on Education was held
in Wichita, Kansas. The title of the Conference was "Schools, Goals and
the 1990's". It was at this conference that the current educational
reform sweeping America first took shape. The expected result of this
conference, announced by Dr. Shirley McCune, Senior Director of
Mid-Continental Regional Educational Laboratory, was the total
restructuring of this nation and its culture. The position is very well
articulated in her November 2 speech:

   ...It seems to me that far too much of our efforts have been focused
on the issue of 'let's find a short term fix and fix up the schools'
and taking care of them rather than the issue of understanding that
what we're into is a total restructuring of the society. What is
happening in America today and what is happening in Kansas in the Great
Plains is not simply a chance situation in the usual winds of change.
What it amounts to is a total transformation of our society... It is
the future that motivates us, it's not what we're doing now. It's the
task that's before us. You cannot begin to think about restructuring of
education without understanding that our total society is in a crisis
of restructuring, and you can't get away from it. You can't go into
rural areas. You can't go into churches. You can't go into government.
You can't go into business and hide from that fact that what we are
facing is a total restructuring of the society. (Emphasis is mine
...without having to restructure society.)

   It is fair to say that what she's "into" is the total restructuring
of society. And there is no doubt that the restructuring is well under
away. The federally mandated "goals" in the Federal reform program,
"GOALS 2000", are being implemented now across the length and breadth
of this country as a means of solving the problem of children "at
risk". GOALS 2000 has been proposed as the answer to solving the
problem of skills deficiencies in our children. It is the proposed
solution for meeting the needs of children. It is the proposed solution
for meeting the challenge of U.S. competition in world markets. It is
the proposed solution to meeting the needs of labor. In a nutshell, it
is "the proposed solution".

   GOALS 2000, of course, is the national educational reform movement
which has established educational criteria for families and schools
with its overwhelming emphasis upon each student's social, ethical, and
emotional development. Cognitive (i.e., "three R"s") skills are
subordinated areas of educational attention. Traditional skills are to
be de-emphasized and attention is to be devoted to attitudes,
self-esteem, and other affective ("affective": acting on the feelings
or the emotions") learning behaviors. Thus, all children will be
required to demonstrate correct attitudes to a wide variety of issues
and "politically correct" positions involving environmentalism, global
citizenship, collectivism and multi-culturalism, which are determined
by the federal government through its Department of Education.

   This radical reform has swept the nation's schools. There can be no
mistake about the fact that the object of such reforms is the radical
restructuring our society. The first victim of this restructuring will
be the American family!

   One example of the real intention of such goals should suffice.
Federally mandated Goal #1 states:

   By the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to
learn.

   On the surface, this seems to have a laudable humanitarian
objective. It would appear to have the child's best interest at heart
in that it would provide each preschool child in America with a
substantial head start so as to advance rapidly in today's society. But
is that really the true objective? Samuel Butler's warning is, perhaps,
appropriate at this point, "Man is the only animal that can remain on
friendly terms with the victims he intends to eat until he eats them."
That is especially true in the world of politics...which is what we are
really dealing with here.

   The real intention of this goal has little to do with the well-being
of any individual child. Its objective has been spelled out by its
framers,

   Every parent in America will be a child's first teacher and devote
time each day to helping his or her preschool child learn; parents will
have access to the training and support they need.

   Translation: "Parents as Teachers" (PAT) program. PAT assumes
jurisdiction over children who fit their state's definition of
"children at risk". State designated "parent educators" (not to be
confused with parents), are given authority to monitor a home many
times per year if the child is defined as "at risk". Bettina Dobbs,
R.N., M.S., former consultant to the U.S. Department of Health and
president of Guardians of Education for Maine described this program:

   It will result in state control of the children and reduce parents
to the status of breeders and supervised custodians.

   A "parent-educator" bonds herself to a family through home visits or
school visits. This is to help parents feel more comfortable about
leaving their child(ren) at the center. Both parents and children are
evaluated under the guise of educational screening. The child is given
a personal computer code number by which he can be tracked the rest of
his life. There are twelve computer code definitions that label the
child "at risk." Since the expectation is that every child will be
found "mentally ill", there is no code for normal.

   In Missouri, families are rated in the PAT program according to "at
risk" descriptions listed in the "Revised Missouri Risk Factor Form",
revised edition, copyright 1990, which includes the following:

   - premature babies, emergency delivery or birth trauma

   - a child's slow growth, poor appetite or frequent illness

   - inability of parent to cope with inappropriate child behavior,
including spanking as exclusive form of discipline, and inconsistency

   - a parent who is ill, tired, depressed, handicapped, injured or
appears to be of low level intelligence

   - undue spoiling on the part of the parent

   - stress on the family such as a parent that travels frequently,
three children under the age of three, divorce, separation, prolonged
illness, loss of job, low level of income, moving to a new home.

   Since many states are developing policies similar to that of
Missouri, a few questions are in order. Just exactly what constitutes
"stress on the family"? Do not many families exhibit some temporary
"stress" from time to time? How will the school define unstable home
environments and family trauma? Surely, families periodically face
trauma due to prolonged illness of a member, death in the family, job
loss, financial reversals, etc. This latter state "category" is
particularly cruel, because the family may face trauma only then to
face a government service worker who believes it to be in the best
interest of the children now "at risk" to be removed ... OR, at the
very least, for the family to be subject to constant scrutiny from that
time forward. In other words, because of trauma, a family would now
report to a government agent regularly just as criminals report to
probation officers.

   So, in reality, the issue is the restructuring of the family unit by
government authorities so that the family is subordinated BY LAW to the
inspection and intrusion of "educrats", social workers, and health care
providers working in tandem.

   Education expert Kathy Finnegan describes the restructuring
implicit in this program in the following terms:

   The basic premise behind the PAT program is that parents are
ill-prepared to rear children and thus need guidance and direction from
the government... PAT programs benefit financially when as many
children as possible are designated "at risk" and in need of the PAT
services (the self-perpetuating government program). The categories for
"at risk" have become so broad that virtually everyone who comes under
their scrutiny qualifies. Of interest to Christian parents is the fact
that spanking children is considered a form of child abuse and is,
naturally, a qualifying category. Parents who disagree with having
their children labeled "at risk" can be subject to charges of child
abuse just for refusing to cooperate with PAT officials. (1)

   This is certainly a much clearer, though more discouraging look at
the "inside" of America's much vaunted reform movement "on behalf of
the children." Perhaps German autocrat Otto von Bismarck was right,
"Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made."

   WHOSE CHILD?

   The U.S. Committee for UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) has
been distributing a peculiar PSA (Public Service Announcement) to
public service directors across the country since, at least, February
1994. This PSA is part of an "advocacy program" which is designed to
raise awareness for "every child in our global community", according to
Gwendolyn Calvert Baker, president of the Committee. The PSA television
broadcast commentary runs as follows:

   To survive, to grow every child needs medicine, clean water,
nutrition, education. UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund,
because every child is our child." (Emphasis mine)

   Every child is...whose child? This final clause of the PSA is
worrisome in light of the fact that the United Nations has had a long
history of assuming to interpose on behalf of all children in our
"global community." Even as far back as 1949, our United States State
Department was concerned by UNESCO statements concerning guidance and
control of the affections and loyalties of the children of the global
community (and the U.S.) through education. In Dept. of State
publication #841574, "UNESCO Leaders Speak", the conditioning of
children's attitudes is clearly enunciated in a speech by UNESCO
officer Luther Evans as he enthusiastically endorsed U.N. education
policy objectives.

   UNESCO's is a radical program. The rewards may be visible ten years
from now; again they may not be visible for a hundred years... They are
instilled into the daily habits of mind of rising generations --perhaps
not the first, not the second, but ultimately, it must be so ... To
make the system of the UN and its specialized agencies work, we must
sweep past traditional barriers in out thinking toward new frames of
reference. (Emphasis mine.)

   Mr. Evans is not pulling any punches when he states categorically
that the U.N. "must sweep past traditional barriers", including the
family institution. This is certainly clarified by UNESCO publication
Toward World Understanding. Here it was quite clear that the U.N. has a
duty in interposing for children lest they be "poisoned" by family and
country:

   For the moment, it is sufficient to note that it is most frequently
in the family that children are infected with nationalism by hearing
what is national extolled and what is foreign disparaged. As
chauvinism...it must be regarded as the complete negation of world
mindedness... As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of
nationalism, education in world mindedness can produce only rather
precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family
that infects the child with extreme nationalism.

   Note the fact that the family is responsible for "poisoning" the
minds of its children. This was a bold stroke even for that day.
However, this was not to be the only area to concern U.N. authorities
in its fight for "the children."

   FAMILY AS "ABUSE"

   After a decade of debate among children's rights advocates and
world leaders, an agreement was reached which created a comprehensive
charter advancing the agenda of the children's liberation movement.
That charter is known as the UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF
THE CHILD (UNCRC). For those not aware of the child advocacy or
liberation movement, a brief summary as to its purpose and agenda is in
order. (2)

   The children's rights movement began in the 1960's. Ronald and
Beatrice Gross, two of the leading children's rights advocates, have
stated that the movement was launched "to rectify the shameful
conditions that lead to the damage and death of so many children."
Young people, they said,

   are the most oppressed of all minorities. They are discriminated
against on the basis of age in every area from movie admissions to sex.
They are traditionally the subjects of ridicule, humiliation and mental
torture in homes, schools, and other institutions. (3)

   It is clear from the literature of the children's liberation
movement and leaders that the American family has abused its position
as the provider of children's necessities. The language reminds one of
all the "at risk" allegations the American public has become so
accustomed to hearing. What was it that Bettina Dobbs said?

   There are twelve computer code definitions which label the child
"at risk." Since the expectation is that every child will be found
"mentally ill", there is no code for normal.

   It doesn't take too much reading between the lines to see that the
family is again impugned as the fount which poisons the minds of its
young ones. Family life is the cause of so much (assumed) mental
illness in all of our children! All that love which parents thought
they were pouring into their children is apparently quite misguided
when it dares to restrain certain behavior or modify certain areas of
conduct. In other words, parents are not to discipline bad behavior.
However, it isn't certain actions which are of concern to child
activists, it is the very existence of the family which is at issue.
Our society is supposed to take comfort from the fact that there are
some "enlightened" individuals who are diligently watching for the
welfare of our children because parents have so obviously "blown it"
with their children. A person can take only so much comforting!

   Douglas Phillips, nationally renowned expert on the Convention and
an attorney for the National Center for Home Education, has issued this
warning in his SPECIAL REPORT: THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE
RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (You can order this outstanding REPORT from P.I.N.
--address listed at the end of this article.):

   Advocates of this philosophy identify the traditional family as the
single greatest threat to the welfare of the child. A basic
presupposition for children's rights activists is that the child will
not experience a truly healthy environment until he is unshackled from
every conceivable restraint imposed by parents.

   Interestingly enough, at least one leader from the international
community who has led the fight for the child advocacy movement has
publicly stated the hope that the CONVENTION would "rid ...children of
the pernicious influence of Christianity."

   The point of this movement is to provide an authority which could
intervene on behalf of any child, allegedly defending him from some
abuse, loss of rights, opportunity, or advantage to which he is
entitled. Of course, the United Nations has volunteered for the job.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is the legal
instrument designed to bring such authority to bear...on behalf of the
children. After all, every child is their child.

   CONCLUSION: WHAT TO DO?

   1) Write your Senators immediately and tell them to vote "no" to the
U.N. CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD since it is still not the
law of this country. The United States is one of the member nations of
the U.N. which has not yet ratified this terrible treaty into law. It
is the Senate alone which has power to ratify treaties
constitutionally...and this is a treaty.

   2) Write us as part of an ever expanding network of concerned
parents:

   If you would like more information on dangerous educational reforms,
please write to:

   Parent Information Network BOX 733 ELM GROVE, WI 53122

   (1) Kathy Finnegan, "A Commentary on America 2000", Research Manual,
ed. James R. Patrick, page 9

   (2) Douglas Phillips, "Special Report: The United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child", page 1

   (3) ibid. , page 2