The government knows best when it comes to your children.
This is what the Irish government is telling citizens, who will
vote on a referendum Saturday to determine if they will forfeit
their parental rights to government officials -- on a nationwide
But this is not your usual referendum. And when severe
government intrusion comes into play internationally, the United
Nations is usually not far from the scene. In fact, the "child
rights" amendment being voted upon is the brainchild of the
Constitutional Review Group -- an organization that structured the
treaty to emulate the highly controversial U.N. Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC), which Ireland ratified 20 years ago.
Under the proposed amendment, the
government would be given the power to take children away from
their parents and put them up for adoption "where the best interest
of the child so require." Even more unbelievable than this is that
it will not be mandatory for government officials to show any proof
of parental unfitness before such seizures.
So why would voters approve the referendum this weekend and put
the government well on its way to push families into forced
adoptions when they believe they are acting in the so-called "best
interests of the child?" An aggressive state campaign for such
"protective" measures and little media coverage could be all the
government needs to ram this through. And this intrusion of power
is not something that would happen only on exceptional
circumstances; this measure will be used in "all proceedings."
With enough votes, Ireland could give the term "nanny state" a
whole new meaning.
"By eliminating the current presumption that parents act in the
best interest of the child, the amendment would empower the
government through its social welfare agencies to summon families
to answer to secret courts if it were 'likely' that a child's
safety or welfare 'could' be compromised," reads a statement issued
But what are the "best interests" of the child and who
"[The] best interests [standard] provides decisions and policy
makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for
either the child's or the parents', providing it is based on
considerations of the best interests of the child," proclaims
Geraldine Van Bueren, a legal scholar at the University of London
Despite all of the warning signs and indications that such a law
would render parents powerless to protect their children from an
authoritarian state, many parents in Ireland are divided over the
issue, with many not fully comprehending the dire conditions they
could be voting themselves into.
Furthermore, even though such legislation would be taking place
thousands of miles across the sea, such a passed measure could end
up on American shores before long, especially with the trend of
U.S. judges looking to European rulings when deciding domestic
"This would be a grave tragedy for families in Ireland, and
certainly something we do not want to see happen in the United
States," asserts parentalrights.org spokesman, Michael Donnelly,
who serves as adjunct professor of constitutional law at Patrick Henry
College in Purcellville, Virginia. "This amendment would
completely take away the common sense safeguard and presumption
that parents act in their child's best interests unless proven
Regardless, Donnelly notes that the amendment provides no added
or needed protection for children, as provisions are currently in
place that gives the government the ability to intercede on the
behalf of children if and when their safety has been proven to be
"Two former Irish supreme court justices have stated that this
amendment is not necessary because Irish law and the constitution
already allow state intervention in cases of abuse or neglect,"
Few have grasped the gravity of this situation, which has been
largely masked across airwaves and endorsed by the state.
"Despite the serious nature of the change, opponents have thus
far been unable to get the attention of the Irish media," contends
Michael Ramey, the director of communications and research for
parentalrights.org. "The measure is backed by every political party
and many vocal non-profit groups in the country, and is the subject
of a major information campaign by the government."
Taking no chances of similar intrusions coming at the hands of
the U.S. government in the homes of American families,
parentalrights.org has been taking matters into its own hands to
ensure that Americans won't have the same luck of the Irish.
Already witnessing areas where the state has stepped between
parents and their children -- such as sexual education, where
parents cannot opt their children out of instruction that attacks
their beliefs; anti-spanking laws; and the inability of parents to
obtain information about their children regarding contraception and
medical treatment at schools and clinics -- parentalrights.org is
calling upon Americans to sign a petition to enact its proposed Parental Rights Amendment.
The petition is designed to make certain parental rights
constitutionally protected. More specifically, the safeguard makes
four major provisions that don't let the government usurp parental
authority in certain areas:
- The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and
care of their children is a fundamental right.
- Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe this
right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as
applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise
- This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental
action or decision that would end life.
- No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international
law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the
rights guaranteed by this article.
But would the U.S. government really overstep its boundaries --
straight into family rooms?
The threat of America's court system adopting the U.N.'s
Convention on the Rights of the Child is very real, as President
Barack Obama (along with Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer -
California) has wanted to employ it since his first year in office
under the guise of civil rights and extra security measures for
kids. Proponents of the CRC attest that it creates "the right of
the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion," while
outlawing the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her
However, the organization (U.N.) that is frequently praised in
public schools for its international peacekeeping forces -- the
same one that is trying to regulate businesses and the distribution
of wealth under its climate-change banner ... the same U.N. that
propagates population control via forced abortion measures
internationally -- is the same organization that is being warned
about for its radical policies concerning children ... policies
that many might consider no less than a home invasion.
To publicize this multi-front attack on the home,
parentalrights.org essentially put together two "top 10" lists of
things to watch out for when it comes to the U.N.'s CRC. It is
titled "20 Things You Need to Know about the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child." The first ten warn about the
treaty's structure, while the second ten (listed below) alert
Americans about its substance and the consequences of adopting the
- Children would have the ability to choose their own religion
while parents would only have the authority to give their children
advice about religion.
- The best interest of the child principle would give the
government the ability to override every decision made by every
parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's
- A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek
governmental review of every parental decision with which the child
- According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a
nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's
- Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to
- Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews"
and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the
face of article 29" of the treaty.
- Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has
been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
- Children would have the right to reproductive health
information and services, including abortions, without
parental knowledge or consent.
- Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable
spankings to their children.
- A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time
of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
For those not believing that such binding measures could be
enforced on America's land of the free, they might want to remember
that such policies have already been under consideration in their
own court system -- and championed by their current