UN Committee Pursues Radical Social Agenda

4 October 2002

There were no surprises in today's report from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Contrary to the impression being given in some sections of the media, the UK is not being singled out for criticism as the report follows the same pattern as those addressed to other countries. The observations and recommendations made were entirely predictable.

Norman Wells commented: "The Committee is tending to interpret the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in a fairly extreme way as a means of promoting a somewhat radical social agenda. Certainly they have gone way beyond what was in the minds of the original framers of the Convention, and far beyond what most states would have understood the Convention to mean when they originally signed up to it."

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is framed in very broad terms. For example, the Committee argues that an absolute ban on all physical correction of children is required by Article 19 of the Convention. But in reality, the Convention states that children should be protected from "all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse". It does not say anything about parental discipline at all.

The Committee is not consistent in its view of children. Norman Wells observed: "There is a strange anomaly in the report in that at the same time as calling for an absolute ban on all physical correction of children, the UN Committee is also pressing for a considerable rise in the minimum age for criminal responsibility. It seems that in one breath they want children to be treated exactly the same as adults, while in the next breath they want them to be treated differently. They want children to have adult rights but not adult responsibilities."

Mr Wells went on to express three concerns about the Committee's approach:

"Firstly, the Committee is seeking to impose an unproven philosophy of childhood on every country in the world in a way that fails to respect the social, cultural, religious and philosophical factors which shape each family. Secondly, it is undermining parents and the autonomy of the family. It is striking that in its 17-page report, the Committee focuses exclusively on the responsibility of the state for children, without giving any recognition to the role and responsibilities of their parents or of the family unit. And thirdly, to speak about relationships within the family in terms of the "rights" of one member over against the other can very easily foster a spirit of conflict and set children against their parents and parents against their children, which can have very damaging consequences for all concerned."

With regard to the UN Committee's remarks on the physical correction of children, Families First fully endorses a statement issued by the Children & Young People's Unit:

"The Government is absolutely opposed to violence and abuse against children. The law only allows what is reasonable in terms of the physical punishment of children - it does not permit child abuse. We recognise that parenting can be difficult, but we must avoid heavy-handed intrusion into family life. The Convention refers to the protection of children from physical violence and maltreatment. The Government is satisfied that UK law is in line with these provisions.

"We believe our policy reflects common sense views of the vast majority of people. It is not only wrong but dangerous to link smacking and child abuse deaths. It diverts attention from those children most at risk."

Copyright © 2001-2007 Families First. All rights reserved.