|UN Rights of Child Reemerges
A reprint from KHouse eNews for The Week of 7/18/2000, http://www.khouse.org, forwarded by Lady Jan the Voluptuous
Signs that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is rearing its head again came earlier this month when President Clinton signed two new optional protocols, or additions, to the 1989 treaty. The new protocols require participating countries to ensure no one under the age of 18 takes part in combat or is forcibly recruited into armed services. They also have to take action to ban the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography.
While the protocols may sound good on the surface, there are good reasons why the Senate has refused to ratify the full treaty. For example, the treaty officially designates the state as the guardian of children's best interest, ensuring that the state knows better than parents which materials are appropriate and which associations are beneficial. The state is also considered responsible for protecting the child when parental beliefs conflict with the rights of the child. Politically incorrect beliefs such as spanking or religious indoctrination could be grounds for placing children into foster care. The U.S. is one of only two countries which have failed to ratify the full treaty.
In addition to the concerns regarding the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are the concerns about censorship issues. Big government, including the UN, isn't thrilled with the quantity of free speech and news reporting happening on the Internet. As a result, any effort to censor content must be viewed suspiciously as potentially opening the door to censorship of things other than pornography. Remember that the same legal safeguards in the tensions between freedom of speech vs. porn do not exist internationally or in many other countries.
To further the point, examine the call from the German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin last month for global rules against hate speech on the Internet. He told a conference in Berlin that we must achieve a "global value consensus" regarding the regulation of the Internet. While he admitted that global legislation was a long way off, he advised international regulators to take the first step by focusing on areas like child pornography to launch the precedent for censorship.
Many well meaning Christians will eagerly go along with censorship of Internet free speech in cases like child pornography. They do not realize that they just stepped onto a slippery slope leading to the censorship of religious speech as well, especially considering that the majority of the world's countries do not cherish free speech in the same manner as it is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. When we sign treaties, we place the laws they contain higher than the Constitution, nullifying the rights guaranteed therein.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2
More On Gandhi
Distributed by Good Clean Funnies List
Mahatma Gandhi walked barefoot everywhere, to the point that his feet became quite thick and hard. He also was quite a spiritual person. Even when he was not on a hunger strike, he did not eat much and became quite thin and frail. Furthermore, due to his diet, he ended up with very bad breath. Therefore, he came to be known as a Super calloused fragile mystic plagued with halitosis.
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Throughout the world, the members of factions in conflict don't really seem to want to solve their defining problems. Instead, they seem to want their faction to dominate the other faction. In such situations, compromise is probably impossible. It's more likely that problem resolutions, imposed by third-parties and perceived as compromise, will merely force the conflict into the future, perpetuating it. In such situations, some result other than either conflict or compromise should be sought. Jerusalem appears to be at the center of such a conflict. It doesn't seem like a compromise is possible, only various levels of conflict into the foreseeable future. I have a suggestion.
Jerusalem could become a self-governing, politically independent city-state, with its own laws, its own citizenship requirements, and so forth. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians would like the situation, but at least it would remove Jerusalem from the list of trophies to be won by conflict. Neither faction could have it, but everyone could visit it. The city-state would be governed not by Israelis or Palestinians, but by its own citizens I don't necessarily like the idea, but only because it violates my own theory about social contract government. However, it might be centuries yet before that theory receives a fair hearing, so in the meantime, a self-governing city-state is probably the best resolution that is realistically possible.
Letters to the Editor
I really liked what that guy had to say about "the level playing field."
Bob; San Jose, California
Bob's comment is in response to the untitled reprint, in the July issue, page 2, of a newspaper article that was forwarded by Eric, of Calipatria, California.
A basic principle of modern democracy is: all men are created equal. That doesn't mean we all have the same talents. It was Rousseau who said that democracy would give men the most freedom, contrary to Plato's warning that democracy is always "mob-ocracy", i.e. the "tyranny of the majority." The modern, Jeffersonian "cure" is indeed supposed to be the Bill of Rights, but of course the Bill of Rights too is often "weasel words." There is something wrong with a country that says: "all men are created equal," but allows non-whites, women, gays, intellectuals to be insulted, abused, robbed, persecuted. The ignorant have their right to talk trash, but we don't have our "equal" right to respond, in a media that, from the NY Times to the Frontiersman, is so intent on protecting the freedom of the John Rockers of the country. You all are simply protecting the stupid, the ignorant, the vulgar, from Rocker to Jr Bush; this is the essence of "mob-ocracy." Meanwhile Christianity & the UN are indeed in a millennial death-struggle.
Elliot; N. Merrick, New York
A government powerful enough to prevent non-whites, women, homosexuals, and intellectuals from being insulted, abused, robbed, or persecuted would also be a government powerful enough to enslave us all, including non-whites, women, homosexuals, and intellectuals. If you want to prevent the evils of which you complain, then don't expect the government to do it for you. Fix it yourself.
You should be happy that I'm interested in the rights of the stupid, the ignorant, and the vulgar. Who knows? Maybe I count you among them. If I don't, then somebody else, somewhere else, surely will. Remember this. Aryeh Neier, of the American Civil Liberties Union, once said "The defense of civil liberties, by definition, involves the defense of persons who are most despised by the public."
When "perverts" don't have a right to publish "pornography", then (eventually) nobody will have a right to publish anything. All publication will be a regulated privilege. When irate baseball players don't have the right to state their own annoying opinions in public, then (eventually) nobody will have the right to state his opinion in public. All such statement of opinion will be a regulated privilege. When wild eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth, arm-waving radicals (like me) don't have the right to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government, then (eventually) nobody will have the right to advocate anything. All such advocacy will be a regulated privilege. Those are facts.
Dear Frontiersman, .... Your articles are always good. I take that to be a sign that all goes well with you.
Shirley; Urbana, Illinois
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
Heard Grandma Talking
Dear Heard Grandma Talking
That's when all the little fish in your pond stop for a minute.
Cancellations If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me.
Back Issues Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.
Reprint Policy Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other publications. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.
Submissions I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise.
Payment This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and U.S. postage stamps. I will accept checks or money orders only by prior arrangement. I don't accept anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.
Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor