Amanda Mitchell
I am trying to get the word out about the CRPD and its long-term consequences. I believe this issue will be important to you. I believe the consequences for ratifying the CRPD are more grave than realized and urgent action needs to be taken. I hope that you will listen to my point of view and, I thank you in advance for your time.
The CRPD stands for The Convention of Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is a United Nation’s treaty that may soon be going to a ratification vote by the U.S. Senate. I have done my own research and am horrified that we would even consider this. This treaty has many of the same problems as The Convention on the Rights of a Child which, rightly, has never been ratified by the U.S. – in spite of the fact it has been around since 1989.
Similar to The Convention on the Rights of the Child, the CRPD gives the UN and government agencies control over what is in the “best interests” of our children, this time specifically our disabled children. It also claims the right to make decisions for disabled adults – all in the name of protecting them. It supersedes many of our own fundamental rights like the right to self-govern, our laws and our Constitution. And instead of “We the People” it gives further control over to government to do what “it” thinks is best.
It scares me, because Hitler didn’t just come to power overnight and then start committing atrocities. People really believed in change and the “best for the Motherland”. It wasn’t about killing people, but about success, improvement and a better way of life for the people of Germany. If the people of the country were looking at long term consequences of their ideology, how many do you think would have stopped it before it got out of hand?
Some Examples
What is defined as best by government is not always what is best for individuals.Euthanasia is a good example. Belgium is one of the countries that have adopted these UN treaties. If a doctor believes the child under the age of one will suffer in life because of a disability, the government has given power to doctors to decide whether or not to end that child’s life. Parents can protest, but the doctor decides. This is not unlike what Hitler did. At first the disabled were taken care of and put in homes, and then they were given “merciful deaths.”
In Sweden, it is a “child’s right” to childcare outside the family home. The government provides maternity leave until the child reaches about 16 months of age and then expects that families place their children in childcare After all, the government knows the “best interests” of your child. If you home school in Sweden, you can look forward to being hunted down and your children taken. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I cannot think of a time in history where once government gained a foothold – often using the term “human rights” – that it ever let go of its prey. Human rights were defined no longer by individuals, but by the few on top who rule.
And is it really “human rights” at the end of the day or a way to sugarcoat another person’s beliefs that you will be forced to live by? Before we know it, we will have lost all that we have, by trying to do good, and only a few will have gained in the end. These treaties do sound good; they deceive many people and many nations.
I believe in families, kids, parents and individuals. It really saddens me to see our freedoms and way of life slip away. More and more governmental control only leads to oppression and suppression, even if it was started with good intentions.
What’s in The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Article 7 of the CRPD states:
1. STATES PARTIES shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.
2. In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
3. STATES PARTIES shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.
There is no consideration in this article for parental rights and it states that “in ALL actions…the best interests of the child shall be the PRIMARY consideration.” And who is going to be considering what is in the best interest of my child? The government or “STATES PARTIES”. My child shall also “… be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.” That means government shall undermine and take over the parents’ role to “provide” the “assistance to realize that “right.” However, I still believe it is a fundamental right and responsibility of a parent to decide what is in the best interest of a child and to GUIDE their child. What is a parent without this right?
No one knows a child like a parent. A parent sees the small things that add up to big things in a child’s life. We make it our priority. Each child is different and every family is different. I know that we have to take unique things into consideration with each child in our family when deciding what is needed for our child’s success and happiness. There will never be a one size fits all.
How can a government begin to monitor and “ensure” the “enjoyment” of those with disabilities to be equal to others without establishing precedence for it? Firm standards would need to be established requiring defined rights, best interests and happiness of those with disabilities and those without. Thus, our freedom and liberty will be diminished in light of a government-controlled and pre-determined definition of “rights” and “happiness” and “best interests”; a one-size-fits-all cliché. Worse yet, the treaty gives power to an unelected group of international bureaucrats to dictate to countries what is required of each country to meet their obligations under this treaty.
Conclusion
A government does not consider differences in each child, individual or family and no one will do as much for our kids as we, the parents, will. No bureaucrat or politician’s beliefs should take precedence over a parent when it comes to a child. Please do not give anyone the right to overstep this boundary. It is not what is going to help our children, families or individual freedom. In addition, the CRPD is supposed to help secure the “fundamental freedoms” of those with disabilities, yet the UN doesn’t have the ability or power to protect even the most basic “fundamental freedoms” of people around the world.
I believe this issue touches every life regardless of our beliefs or circumstances. Opening the door for the government to decide what is needed to “protect us”, leaves unchecked power that can rob us of our liberty. The government taking control of our “best interests” will render us powerless and it will supersede our right to individual freedom, religious freedom, freedom of speech and the right to self-govern.
Please help spread the word and help stop this treaty. In so doing, you are considering the future of our children and our nation. Contact your Senators, tell them to vote “no” on the CRPD.
Editor’s Note: We would like to introduce you to Amanda. It is so refreshing to meet people who, on their own, research the threats that exist and then do something with what they know! Amanda is a citizen and a concerned parent who keeps her eyes and ears open. When she learned of CRPD, she sat down and wrote of her passion for preserving our right to make decisions for and to protect our families – particularly those with disabilities – and then contacted UFI to see if we would help her alert other people. We hope you enjoy reading her perspective on this treaty.