Canada's Attempt To Develop A Universal Early Learning and Child Care Program Based On UN CRC

According to Martha Friendly with the Childcare Resource and Research Unit at University of Toronto, as of 2006, Canada still needed to be more dedicated to finding ways to commit to the UN CRC as it relates to early learning and child care. She feels that the sections of the UN CRC relevant to early learning should be followed in the most dedicated ways by the Canadian government. In her opinion, the federal and provincial governments need to regulate all early learning programs in order to provide the elements needed for all children. For children are citizens who and have rights and voices that need to be respected. She feels that Canada needs to develop a system for a universal high quality early learning and child care program.

Ms. Friendly covers the political history of early learning and child care throughout Canada and points out the specific areas of the UN CRC that pertain to it. She includes numerous statistics and a variety of quotes from research that appear to support her argument. From her vantage point, there does not appear to be any negative elements for Canada (and the rest of the world) to fully support the UN CRC when it comes to caring and educating young children.

What if this attitude was acted upon here in the United States? There are already people in powerful political positions who feel that the UN CRC is an ideal and much needed aspect for our lives. Can you imagine the enormous financial impact that a national state-supported child care program could have on us here in our nation? As if we don't have enough on our debt plates as it is. And if the program is federally funded, then we would be required to follow whatever requirements it entailed. That in itself is a very scary thought. Another example of the government knowing how to raise our children better than us, their parents.

(by John Robinson, contributing author)

Part 14: The Emerging Worldview Threatening our Children, Section 4

Obviously, this view is different than most American’s beliefs and should be opposed by anyone who believes that parents have an inalienable right to direct the upbringing and education of their own children. If the government gains the upper hand, they will take over this role from the parents. This will occur through legal means, educational means, and administrative means. Who exactly will take over? The ruling political class and their experts.
In contrast, we recognize that God has given parents certain rights and duties, not the government. They are inalienable rights based on the duties commanded by God discussed earlier. They do not need the government to grant them, only protect them from its own power grab. Unless parents cross a criminal line, the civil government must stay out of the family sphere. The real perpetrator against rights is government. As will be seen shortly, the UN seeks to undermine the Biblical view of parental rights
As the final ingredient to a nasty recipe, many high ranking leaders of our country believe in Customary International Law. This is an entry point for the philosophy just discussed into our system of law. In simple terms, this means that International Law overrides our Constitution or Congressional law if the majority of other countries already hold to it. For parental rights this means that we should obey the CRC even though we have not ratified it.
One may examine the US Supreme Court Case of Roper v. Simmons in which the CRC was used to rule against the juvenile death penalty. My concern lies not with the death penalty, but with the use of the CRC to argue against it based on Customary International Law. Another example is a judge in NY and another in Ohio has even used the CRC to rule in cases involving American parents. This is another example of using customary international law although the Ohio judge simply thought that we had already ratified the CRC. If that is not irritating enough, San Francisco, Portland, OR, and Berkeley have adopted CRC (without legal jurisdiction to adopt treaties).
You should also be aware that very high ranking officials in the US Justice Department and the State Department believe this theory of law. Harold Koh believes this as a high ranking State Dept. lawyer. David Ogden -- deputy attorney general of the United States, the second highest position in the Justice Department also holds to this philosophy.
And last but not least, not only does our new Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor believe in the supremacy of international law, but so does our current tentative appointee, Elena Kagan. So you can see that the leaders entrusted to defend us and our law, don’t believe in defending us, but instead surrendering our freedoms to international law. If these leaders and their followers have their way, the CRC will probably become part of American law without Senate ratification through Customary International Law.
Obviously, while the first two philosophies combine to pose a great danger to parental rights, the third ingredient simply opens wide the door to their UNWELCOME intrusion and heightens the urgency of a response by American parents.