Re: Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

[Guest guest]

Thanks for sharing this, Kathy! I so wish we could disassociate ourselves with the UN! I want NOTHING to do with them.

 

HSLDA post by Mike Farris on FacebookMay 25 at 11:07pm · 

Earlier tonight, I urged all of you to call your US Senators to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Many have asked for further information. It is now provided:

Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Farris, J.D., LL.M. Farris has been a constitutional litigator for over 35 years and has taught constitutional law at the collegiate level since 2000. In 2011, he earned a LLM in Public International Law (with Distinction) from the University of London. 

1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.

2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.

4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.

5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.

6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people. 

7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best. 

Under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.

8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.

9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to ….inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.

10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

I could keep listing problems—but I promised only ten.

[Guest guest]

This is not how the other countries see the Convention. This is a totally biased and twisted interpretation of the Convention. The Convention was signed by countries to make sure States (Countries) provide minimum rights for people with disabilities - that's all. This facebook depiction of the Convention is 100% wrong.

mom to Vito (2years old) and a Career Diplomat

To: DownSyndromeInfoExchange Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:22 AMSubject: Re: [DownSyndromeInfoExchange] Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Thanks for sharing this, Kathy! I so wish we could disassociate ourselves with the UN! I want NOTHING to do with them.

HSLDA post by Mike Farris on Facebook

May 25 at 11:07pm ·

Earlier tonight, I urged all of you to call your US Senators to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Many have asked for further information. It is now provided:

Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Farris, J.D., LL.M.

Farris has been a constitutional litigator for over 35 years and has taught constitutional law at the collegiate level since 2000. In 2011, he earned a LLM in Public International Law (with Distinction) from the University of London.

1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.

2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.

3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise†must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.

4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.

5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.

6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.

7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.

Under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.

8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation†means.

9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment†is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to ….inhuman or degrading treatment.†This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.

10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child†standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

I could keep listing problems—but I promised only ten.

[Guest guest]

The United States already has protections in place for people with disabilities. We don't need to sign a treaty with other nations in order to provide this for our citizens.

 

This is not how the other countries see the Convention. This is a totally biased and twisted interpretation of the Convention. The Convention was signed by countries to make sure States (Countries) provide minimum rights for people with disabilities - that's all. This facebook depiction of the Convention is 100% wrong.

mom to Vito (2years old) and a Career Diplomat

To: DownSyndromeInfoExchange Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:22 AM

Subject: Re: [DownSyndromeInfoExchange] Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Thanks for sharing this, Kathy! I so wish we could disassociate ourselves with the UN! I want NOTHING to do with them.

 

HSLDA post by Mike Farris on Facebook

May 25 at 11:07pm · 

Earlier tonight, I urged all of you to call your US Senators to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Many have asked for further information. It is now provided:

Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Farris, J.D., LL.M.

Farris has been a constitutional litigator for over 35 years and has taught constitutional law at the collegiate level since 2000. In 2011, he earned a LLM in Public International Law (with Distinction) from the University of London. 

1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.

2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.

3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.

4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.

5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.

6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people. 

7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best. 

Under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.

8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.

9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to ….inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.

10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

I could keep listing problems—but I promised only ten.

[Guest guest]

Oh, yeah? That is why my son, who has DS and was born in the US and is about to go to school in the US is experiencing the following:

1) Several private schools refused to have him because of his disability ( In Brazil, no private school is legally able to do this because it is against the law and the law is the the International Convention);

2) Even in public school, I have to fight for him to be included and mainstreamed

Sorry, but I completely disagree with you and I think the US ought to sign it.

Best,

Chris

To: DownSyndromeInfoExchange Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 5:54 PMSubject: Re: [DownSyndromeInfoExchange] Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The United States already has protections in place for people with disabilities. We don't need to sign a treaty with other nations in order to provide this for our citizens.

This is not how the other countries see the Convention. This is a totally biased and twisted interpretation of the Convention. The Convention was signed by countries to make sure States (Countries) provide minimum rights for people with disabilities - that's all. This facebook depiction of the Convention is 100% wrong.

mom to Vito (2years old) and a Career Diplomat

To: DownSyndromeInfoExchange Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:22 AMSubject: Re: [DownSyndromeInfoExchange] Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Thanks for sharing this, Kathy! I so wish we could disassociate ourselves with the UN! I want NOTHING to do with them.

HSLDA post by Mike Farris on Facebook

May 25 at 11:07pm ·

Earlier tonight, I urged all of you to call your US Senators to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Many have asked for further information. It is now provided:

Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Farris, J.D., LL.M.

Farris has been a constitutional litigator for over 35 years and has taught constitutional law at the collegiate level since 2000. In 2011, he earned a LLM in Public International Law (with Distinction) from the University of London.

1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.

2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.

3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise†must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.

4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.

5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.

6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.

7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.

Under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.

8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation†means.

9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment†is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to ….inhuman or degrading treatment.†This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.

10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child†standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

I could keep listing problems—but I promised only ten.

[Guest guest]

Dear Chris:I believe that this is exactly what is dangerous about this Convention it is open to be interpreted like this man, with 35 years of experience in litigation!, is interpreting it.I will not doubt that it was written with good intention and basically to help individuals with special needs in Countries that do not even have a basic law for this but it is dangerous, specially for parents. It does not specify WHO decides what is in the childs best interest, or may be it understates that the governments do?There was a case some time ago that was even discussed in this list about an older couple who put their daughter in a home and at some point they desagreed about the medication that the carers in the home

wanted to give their daughter or were ginving her and the last I read about the case is that the parents had to go to court because basically their daughter was being taken away from them (they could not vist etc.). I do not remember clearly and I did not know how it ended but this is what happens when we give our children for others to take care of them and for others to decide. This couple was portrayed by the home as not wanting the best for their daughter after caring for her their whole life!!!With exceptions, no one in the world, other than the parents want what is in the best interest of our children.Panama is a signatary of the Convention and this has not changed one bit how children with special needs are treated regarding to discrimination. Still kids with Down Syndrome are not accepted in Private schools and if they are, parents must pay for a full time aid. The

public school system is bad even for typically developing children, so imagine what happens to children with special needs. The UN convention has changed nothing.I lived in Brazil for 7 years and my son was born there, and also there he was rejected from 2 private schools for having DS. I have read about cases of private schools rejecting children with DS in Brazil and when taken to court the court did not rule in favour of the child...because the obligation of providing education for everyone is with the Government, and private schools are "optional".My experience in Switzerland which is not a signatary of the UN convention has been good and bad.The good part is that they do have a law that provides integration in public schools and the services etc, the bad being that the "Government" decides what is in "the best interest of the child". For a while I could

not find a private (inernational school in English) that would take my son and the goverment decided that homeschooling was not in his best interest, so if I did not find a school he would have to go to public school in, not one but 2 totally different languages (High German and Swiss German) being that I had already tried with a Swiss German play group in which my son did nothing but cry.(He was in school since 2 years old, never cried , always loved it, and still loves it). Also there was no way to make them understand that putting my son in 2 different languages which I did not speak or understood and him having very delayed speech could not in any way be good for him, and that he had to study in a program that he could continue when we moved on, because we were not inmigrants we were expatriets (3 years in each country). If I did not find I school for my son and if I did not send him to public school the "Government" acting in the best

interest of my son could have even taken him away from me!!!!! At the end it was a desicion of finding a school or my husband having to resign to his job and his life career in this company because going to Swiss public school was not in his best interest.Deciding what is in the best interest of a person with desability is not black and white because it does not only involve the person but the whole family and no one, except for the parents should make this desicion. My husband was ready to quit his job, and we were ready to move and affect the life of our other children etc if it came to that point but to me that is also very wrong. Being forced to make such a desicion because someone else was deciding what was in the best interest of ?, and it really was not. Luckñly I did find and international school that accepted (without the UN convention) and the Governement did provide the services

that was entitled to, even if he was not attending public school (without the UN convention) and he was well accepted and loved and he loved the school and developed so much in this year, only because the school and the teachers were willing to work with him.I am having a hard time to find a private school for in the USA and the public school assigned to the area where we will live has very bad reviews from parents of children with special needs so I have not even considered it, but I have the option to decide what is in s best interest,and if that is that he stays home and is homeschooled, as oposed to being in a school where he is not welcome and where he will be put in a corner, while I find a school (I am pro inclusion and my son absolutely loves going to school), for now I have the freedom to choose that and if I were from the USA I would not be willing to surrender that freedom to anyone for

anything.Jannette mother to (6 years old fully inlcuded up to now) De: Christiane aquino Para: "DownSyndromeInfoExchange " <DownSyndromeInfoExchange > Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 27 de Julho de 2012 23:52 Assunto: Re: [DownSyndromeInfoExchange] Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

This is not how the other countries see the Convention. This is a totally biased and twisted interpretation of the Convention. The Convention was signed by countries to make sure States (Countries) provide minimum rights for people with disabilities - that's all. This facebook depiction of the Convention is 100% wrong.

mom to Vito (2years old) and a Career Diplomat

To: DownSyndromeInfoExchange Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:22 AMSubject: Re: [DownSyndromeInfoExchange] Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Thanks for sharing this, Kathy! I so wish we could disassociate ourselves with the UN! I want NOTHING to do with them.

HSLDA post by Mike Farris on Facebook

May 25 at 11:07pm ·

Earlier tonight, I urged all of you to call your US Senators to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Many have asked for further information. It is now provided:

Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Farris, J.D., LL.M.

Farris has been a constitutional litigator for over 35 years and has taught constitutional law at the collegiate level since 2000. In 2011, he earned a LLM in Public International Law (with Distinction) from the University of London.

1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.

2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.

3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise†must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.

4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.

5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.

6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.

7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.

Under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.

8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation†means.

9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment†is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to ….inhuman or degrading treatment.†This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.

10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child†standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

I could keep listing problems—but I promised only ten.

[Guest guest]

Thank you for your insight, Jannette. This is exactly why I am against this. I will NOT give up my rights.Shari

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Jannette Janson de de la Lastra wrote:

 

Dear Chris:I believe that this is exactly what is dangerous about this Convention it is open to be interpreted like this man, with 35 years of experience in litigation!, is interpreting it.

I will not doubt that it was written with good intention and basically to help individuals with special needs in Countries that do not even have a basic law for this but it is dangerous, specially for parents.  It does not specify WHO decides what is in the childs best interest, or may be it understates that the governments do?

 There was a case some time ago that was even discussed in this list about an older couple who put their daughter in a home and at some point they desagreed about the medication that the carers in the home

wanted to give their daughter or were ginving her and the last I read about the case is that the parents had to go to court because basically their daughter was being taken away from them (they could not vist etc.).  I do not remember clearly and I did not know how it ended but this is what happens when we give our children for others to take care of them and for others to decide.  This couple was portrayed by the home as not wanting the best for their daughter after caring for her their whole life!!!

With exceptions, no one in the world, other than the parents want what is in the best interest of our children.Panama is a signatary of the Convention and this has not changed one bit how children with special needs are treated regarding to discrimination.  Still kids with Down Syndrome are not accepted in Private schools and if they are, parents must pay for a full time aid.  The

public school system is bad even for typically developing children, so imagine what happens to children with special needs.  The UN convention has changed nothing.I lived in Brazil for 7 years and my son was born there, and also there he was rejected from 2 private schools for having DS.  I have read about cases of private schools rejecting children with DS in Brazil and when taken to court the court did not rule in favour of the child...because the obligation of providing education for everyone is with the Government, and private schools are " optional " .

My experience in Switzerland which is not a signatary of the UN convention has been good and bad.The good part is that they do have a law that provides integration in public schools and the services etc, the bad being that the " Government " decides what is in " the best interest of the child " .  For a while I could

not find a private (inernational school in English) that would take my son and the goverment decided that homeschooling was not in his best interest, so if I did not find a school he would have to go to public school in, not one but 2 totally different languages (High German and Swiss German) being that I had already tried with a Swiss German play group in which my son did nothing but cry.(He was in school since 2 years old, never cried , always loved it, and still loves it).  Also there was no way to make them understand that putting my son in 2 different languages which I did not speak or understood and him having very delayed speech could not in any way be good for him, and that he had to study in a program that he could continue when we moved on, because we were not inmigrants we were expatriets (3 years in each country).  If I did not find I school for my son and if I did not send him to public school the " Government " acting in the best

interest of my son could have even taken him away from me!!!!!  At the end it was a desicion of finding a school or my husband having to resign to his job and his life career in this company because going to Swiss public school was not in his best interest.

Deciding what is in the best interest of a person with desability is not black and white because it does not only involve the person but the whole family and no one, except for the parents should make this desicion.  My husband was ready to quit his job, and we were ready to move and affect the life of our other children etc if it came to that point but to me that is also very wrong.  Being forced to make such a desicion because someone else was deciding what was in the best interest of ?, and it really was not.  Luckñly I did find and international school that accepted (without the UN convention) and the Governement did provide the services

that was entitled to, even if he was not attending public school (without the UN convention) and he was well accepted and loved and he loved the school and developed so much in this year, only because the school and the teachers were willing to work with him.

I am having a hard time to find a private school for in the USA and the public school assigned to the area where we will live has very bad reviews from parents of children with special needs so I have not even considered it, but I have the option to decide what is in s best interest,and if that is that he stays home and is homeschooled, as oposed to being in a school where he is not welcome and where he will be put in a corner, while I find a school (I am pro inclusion and my son absolutely loves going to school), for now I have the freedom to choose that and if I were from the USA I would not be willing to surrender that freedom to anyone for

anything.Jannette mother to (6 years old fully inlcuded up to now)

De: Christiane aquino

Para: " DownSyndromeInfoExchange " <DownSyndromeInfoExchange >

Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 27 de Julho de 2012 23:52 Assunto: Re: [DownSyndromeInfoExchange] Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

 

This is not how the other countries see the Convention. This is a totally biased and twisted interpretation of the Convention. The Convention was signed by countries to make sure States (Countries) provide minimum rights for people with disabilities - that's all. This facebook depiction of the Convention is 100% wrong.

mom to Vito (2years old) and a Career Diplomat

To: DownSyndromeInfoExchange

Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:22 AMSubject: Re: [DownSyndromeInfoExchange] Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Thanks for sharing this, Kathy! I so wish we could disassociate ourselves with the UN! I want NOTHING to do with them.

 

HSLDA post by Mike Farris on Facebook

May 25 at 11:07pm · 

Earlier tonight, I urged all of you to call your US Senators to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Many have asked for further information. It is now provided:

Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Farris, J.D., LL.M.

Farris has been a constitutional litigator for over 35 years and has taught constitutional law at the collegiate level since 2000. In 2011, he earned a LLM in Public International Law (with Distinction) from the University of London. 

1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.

2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.

3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.

4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.

5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.

6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people. 

7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best. 

Under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.

8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.

9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to ….inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.

10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

I could keep listing problems—but I promised only ten.