[Note that the age(1992) of this article, and the important role of its author makes it of historic rather than topical importance]
The document which sets the standards for children's rights through the world is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is a relatively new convention, since it was put out to member states for signature and later ratification in January 1990. However, its final approval by the UN General Assembly in 1989 followed ten years of careful deliberation and negotiation by a representative working party.
The Convention reflects the variety of the world's religious and sectarian viewpoints. Its preamble could be from a charter for Humanism.
Considering that in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
The body of the Convention affirms all of its detailed rights to all children irrespective of ... religion, political or other opinion, ... or other status.
Article 14 deals with freedom of thought, conscience and religion:
The Convention has already met opposition from those who do not believe that a child should have a right to express views or practise a religion which differs from those of his or her parents. It is interesting to note that 14.1 talks about freedom, which is fettered only by the limitations spelt out in 14.3, for the child to choose a religion or belief. The parental role is acknowledged, but is only one of providing direction or guidance. Children are recognised not as family chattels, but as young people with evolving minds and growing independence.
Article 14 has implications for New Zealand. It could be interpreted as implying that children at church schools have the right to refuse to attend any classes in religious instruction. They may not have chose to attend the school and although their parents may have agreed that the children should attend the religious classes, it is unlikely that the children would have had any part in the agreement. Alternatively, pressure by school or family to require participation in the classes could be seen as a breach of 14.1, or of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which has a similar clause. Any attempt to suspend or expel the student could be challenged in the High Court.
The rights of children as set out in the Convention go beyond those in Article 14. They enshrine the best interests of the child as the guiding principle in all matters affection the child. However they also recognise that, in most circumstances, the best interests of the child are to be part of that child's natural family. The rights of parents and of family unification are also protected, and, in such circumstances when children cannot be with their natural families, their rights to enjoy their own culture and practise their own religion are acknowledged.
The balance between children's rights and family rights is maintained throughout the document. The child is seen as having a right to an opinion and to freedom of expression and association. Clearly this could also be a source of concern for those families who would deny children such freedoms. Basic rights are also protected: education, health services, social security and an adequate standard of living. Children are protected from exploitation, whether in employment, slavery, drug abuse or in situations of armed conflict.
Of particular interest in New Zealand is Article 40, related to the justice system. his states the child's right to be treated fairly in situations when he or she is perceived to have breached the law. Thus any moves to repeal Section 215 of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act, which requires the police to tell young persons their rights before questioning or apprehending them, would be in breach of the Children's Convention.
However, any current discussions about New Zealand breaches of the Convention are merely academic. Although the Government signed the Convention in September 1990, it has not yet been ratified. 114 member states have ratified the Convention, including most of those with whom we traditionally associate ourselves, such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and most of Western Europe. Although the current Government has stated its support for the Convention, there are indications that ratification may not occur.
In order to ratify a UN instrument, a country must check all of its legislation to discover whether any does not comply, and, if so, whether changes would be major or minor. Major changes or those which are made difficult by economic constraints may be by-passed by entering a reservation on the relevant Article. This process has been carried out by the relevant NZ Departments and most have reported only minor impediments to ratification, with support for the Convention.
The Department of Labour is a major stumbling block. With the support of their Minister (Hon Bill Birch) they have informed the Ministry of External Relations and Trade (MERT) that, in their view, the Convention should not be ratified due to 'relatively recent Government policy decisions' which would not be suitable subjects for reservations'. The policy referred to is immigration. Article 10 of the Convention implies that a child should be able to join his or her family in NZ. The Labour Department considers that some children may not be desirable residents. They also point out that children of people applying for refugee status are not entitled to a free education. This latter is surely a quibble. The Article applies to refugee children. Once they have been accorded official status, they qualify for free education.
The Government has made no further moves to ratify the Convention since receiving the reports. There is the risk that the Ministry of Youth Affairs may be absorbed within another Department, which would weaken its focus and limit its impact. Children ad young people are under attack. They are regularly portrayed as truants, as young offenders, as street kids, or as dangerous drivers. Even those limited rights which they do have are under threat. Few voices are heard in their support.
Children are our hope for the future. What are we doing to keep their hope alive?
valid html5