Secretary of State John Kerry wants the Senate to approve the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities treaty being pushed by the UN since 2007. There was another hearing on Nov. 21, 2013, Room G-50 in the U.S. Senate Dirksen Building for advocates for the U.S. ratification of the treaty. Kerry was for it when he sat on the Foreign Relations Committee and he spoke up for it again last week, promising to push for its passage.
One would think he would be too busy giving away the store to the Iranians.
John Kerry said the treaty will push other signatory nations – like Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China – to meet our high standards for making the environment handicapped accessible.
It won’t do anything for us here at home, just abroad.
Kerry said it will enable handicapped students to study abroad. He also sees it as making life easier for veterans living overseas. He is using handicapped students and soldiers to sell us on Pandora’s Box.
What it does do is give Democrats cause to push through laws that support their causes such as abortion.
Since when do signatories even follow these treaties?
From Steven Groves writing for Real Clear Policy:
Consider the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The U.S. has been a party to that treaty since 1992. Other signatories include Ethiopia, Iran, Russia, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Yet, somehow, civil and political rights in those nations are no more available now than they were before. Indeed, all of these nations received the lowest possible rating in Freedom House’s 2013 Freedom in the World report.
The U.S. joined the Convention Against Torture in 1994. Yet after nearly a decade, torture is far from eradicated in many of the other nations that signed on to that treaty.
The same goes for the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The U.S. joined in 1994, but several other parties to the treaty – countries like Egypt, India,Indonesia, Jordan, and Nigeria – are considered the least racially tolerant on the planet
There aren’t any good reasons to cede a ‘pinch of sovereignty’.
The treaty is administered by an 18-person committee in Geneva and if they say the US has violated the treaty they will demand we pay restitution -‘moral damages.’
The panel in Geneva monitoring compliance is composed of “persons of high moral character” who review the rights of children in nations that are party to the convention. Once a year, the Committee submits a report to the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly, which also hears a statement from the CRC Chair, and the Assembly adopts a Resolution on the Rights of the Child.
We are giving up our rights to this panel which we do not even choose and giving ourselves a lot of expensive paperwork. We will also need a cumbersome bureaucracy to support it.
Some claim that the treaty creates a right to abort handicapped children in Article 25 – the article is vague. Others are afraid it will prohibit home schooling. Still others fear it will take control of handicapped children from parents.
In fact, the treaty does zip to further our interests abroad so why turn ourselves over to the 18-member panel in the UN, an organization that does not support our values.
“Nothing in Article 25 or anywhere else in this treaty creates a right to abortion. That is a domestic legal issue and nothing in this treaty changes that,” he said.
Kerry also said the treaty would not have any effects on the ability of parents to home-school their children.
“U.S. ratification of this treaty will have absolutely no impact on parental rights, home-schooling, or any other aspect of U.S. law,” he said.
Kerry is never specific. He deals in generalities and we are supposed to trust him.
Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:
1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.
2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.
3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.
4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.
5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.
6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.
7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.
Additionally, under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.
8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.
9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.
10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.
Tony Perkins, chief of the Family Research Council said that Article 25 mandates “free or affordable” access to “sexual and reproductive health,” as well as so-called “population-based” programs.” That could result in the global community forcing America to sanction sterilization or abortion of the disabled at the expense of taxpayers.
Information can also be found at parental rights.
Information on UN Rights to Your Child.