Defeat U.N. Commission on the Rights of Disabled Persons

I would be lying if I didn’t consider my blog to be my personal soap box, of sorts.  I definitely will rant occasionally about an injustice that weighs heavily on my heart.  However, I generally don’t want this blog to be too “heavy” with those kinds of negative thoughts.  I like my creative space to be a bit lighthearted and joyful.

That being said, some things are important.  Those of you who have followed this blog, or know me outside of the blog world, will remember that my oldest son is mildly Autistic.  This can be considered a disability.  So, when I first learned that the United Nations wanted the United States to ratify their Commission on the Rights of Disabled Persons (CRPD), I must admit to being a little intrigued.

Now, nerd that I am, I took to doing a bit of research (quit laughing now, I know I am a bit obsessive about my research) and am not impressed with what I learned.  Not impressed at all.  It’s a bit scary, actually.

I generally think of the United Nations as a bit of a joke.  Kind of like a traffic cop on downers who blows his whistle and says, “STOP!” but does not act if you don’t actually stop.  It’s a nice idea, but very ineffective and corrupt.

I think that the most interesting thing that the CRPD does is to NOT define what a disability is–or isn’t.  So, a disability depends on the interpretation of whoever happens to be in charge at the time.  That is definitely NOT a good sign.  It’s a red flag, even.  So, anyone who isn’t like everyone else could be deemed to be “disabled” in some fashion and then their care and becomes the responsibility of and the discretion of some faceless government entitly.  Hmmm.  Does anyone else see some problems with this?  Like political dissent?  Like being an outspoken opponent of, well, really anything that the mainstream would value?

The CRPD acts (of course) in the “best interests” of the child or adult in question, yet it fails also to define that phrase.  In the “best interests” according to who?  The government?  The U.N.?  Some stranger?  Public vote?  Again, scary at best.

Our family homeschools.  In doing such, we might (gasp) teach something that is not included with the State mandated curriculum or we may disagree with the official social position on a point or two (history comes to mind) and desire to teach a dissenting opinion in addition to others.  What if that is not in the “best interests” of my children?  What if some government official thinks that it isn’t in MY best interest to teach from home (I am qualified and certified by the way) and should have the income and protections of a public work situation?  What if I am deemed “disabled?”  I wear glasses, have corrected club feet, and arthritis.  I am a free-thinker.  Would that be enough?

Why shouldn’t a child’s parents (or an adult’s family) get to be the final decision maker for their loved ones?  Unless their decisions are patently harmful (taking someone off of a respirator, feeding tube, etc.) where a court order would be involved, families should be trusted to act to achieve the very best potential outcomes for someone that they love.  I can promise you, with all honesty, that NO one residing on this Earth could possibly love my children as much as my husband and I do.  Even the  grandparents would come in second, a close second, but second nonetheless.  We have the most invested in the health and welfare of our children.  We want the very best for them.  Can an impersonal governmental entity run by strangers ever seek to truly do the same?

And what about medical care?  At what point is a child’s or adult’s life not worth saving?  Who gets to decide?  Will parents and loved ones even be consulted?  My views on the sanctity of human life may or may not be the same as yours.  What if the doctors of my choosing aren’t mainstream enough, embrace holistic approaches, use herbs, or experimental techniques?  Will I get to use them?  Will they be allowed to practice as they see fit, or will that not be in the “best interests” of disabled persons?

Finally, consider the Constitution.  The United States is a sovereign state.  We have the right and obligation to make our own laws.  We have enacted both the IDEA (governing educational access) and the ADA (governing access throughout life) on a Federal level that are both strong and specific pieces of legislation to protect our citizenry.  Why would we need or desire vague protections from an overarching source.  We are far from a third world nation that needs to be protected from its own people and customs.

When we have a governing document so well designed and that guarantees our civil rights, why would we hand over ANY authority to someone else (much less a group of international beaureaucrats) that aren’t governed by the same standards or anything even close to as high a standard?  WHY?

This treaty must be defeated.  We don’t need it.  It erodes parental rights (and other rights) guaranteed by our Constitution.  We would truly be taking a step backward in how we protect our citizenry and out children, in particular.

To do your own research, do a Google search and read the treaty.  All of it.  Every. Stinking. Word.  Then check out what the HSLDA has to say about it and Parental Rights.  Last, but not least, contact your state Senators and beg them to defeat the U.N. CRPD.  Tweet about it.  Put it on your Facebook status.  Blog about it.  If you don’t blog, share this post.  Tell your friends, but help us get the word out to stop the ratification of this treaty.  Thanks.

Another Hatchett Job


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>