|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Users Browsing Forum
Googlebot and 3 Guests
|
 Pages: 1 |
 Author |
 HSLDA article (currently 1,280 views) |
| josacli |
| Posted on: May 31st, 2006, 6:41pm |
  |
|
Guest User
|
I've copied and pasted the article directly from the site - I am not sure what exactly to make of this - I know how activist judges can be - what do the rest of you think - is this a threat? If you think so, maybe we should be contacting our Congressmen/women and Senators.
International Law Threatens Home Schooling Warns Home School Legal Defense
By Terry Vanderheyden
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).
NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesitenews.com or call 1-866-787-9947 or (416) 204-1687 ext. 444
Donate to LifeSiteNews.com at http://www.lifesite.net/contribute/
|
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
|
| Gretchen |
| Posted on: June 1st, 2006, 1:51pm |
|
|
Guest User
|
| I know that we have a diverse membership and an even more diverse readership here on the public boards. I don't want to offend anyone. But I don't have much respect for HSLDA, and part of the reason is that they resort to fear-mongering. I feel this is one example of that. I'm certainly not trying to tell you what to do or what to think of this. But since you asked for opinions, mine is that I'm not the least bit concerned about this. |
|
| Logged |
|
|
 |
Reply: 1 - 3 |
|
|
| josacli |
| Posted on: June 1st, 2006, 4:10pm |
|
|
Guest User
|
Interesting that you said that - someone on another list (where this was brought up) referenced another article about this topic. Basically the gist of it was to boost membership and push a bill through the congress. I am not a member of the HSLDA. It sounded a bit outlandish to me, however I do know how certain activist judges have cited international law as a reason for deciding a certain way in a case. I'll say this, it's a sad day when a judge is allowed to use international law as an excuse to legislate from the bench. I can not see how a higher court could defend that action. Just my 2 cents though. Curious what others believed/tought of it.
Jo-Anne |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
Reply: 2 - 3 |
|
|
| Gretchen |
| Posted on: June 2nd, 2006, 3:15pm |
|
|
Guest User
|
Quoted from josacli, posted June 1st, 2006, 4:10pm at hereI can not see how a higher court could defend that action. |
I completely agree! I think it's about a one in a billion chance that a judge would do this in the first place, and I simply can't see how it would be upheld.
That's interesting about that other article that you read about this. I wonder if they're right.  |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
Reply: 3 - 3 |
|
Pages: 1 |
| |
| Forum Rules |
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
|
HTML is off
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on
|
|
|
|
Powered by e-blah Platinum 8.3 © 2001-2005 - May 22nd, 2013, 8:00pm
|
|
|
Locked Board
