Human Rights Council side event on ‘Preventable Child Mortality and Morbidity and Human Rights’

The World Health Organisation recently issued a study on ‘mortality among children under five years of age as a human rights concern’ and the Human Rights Council will, during its current 24^th session, debate a resolution on the issue. In this context an important side event on ‘Preventable Child Mortality and Morbidity and Human Rights’, took place on Tuesday 10 ^th September.

Ms Bernadette Daelmans of the World Health Organisation (WHO) presented an outline of the WHO report on under 5 mortality and told the meeting that Just under 7 million under-five children died in 2011; nearly 800 children every hour but that this represented substantial progress towards achieving MDG4 in that about 14 000 fewer children died every day in 2011 than in 1990, the baseline year for measuring progress. Ms Daelmans told the meeting that globally, under-five mortality has decreased by 41%, from an estimated rate of 87 deaths per 1000 live births in 1990 to 51 deaths per 1000 live births in 2011. This decline translates into an average annual decrease in child mortality of 2.5%, which remains insufficient to achieve the MDG4 target of reducing under-five mortality rates by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. Numbers of under-five deaths have declined from nearly 12 million in 1990 to 6.9 million in 2011.

Ambassador Yvette Stevens of Sierra Leone told the meeting that significant progress has been made in her country resulting in under 5 mortality being reduced by 50 %.  The improvement according to Ambassador Stevens related to improvement in Public health issues such as access to medicines, clean water and hospital delivery of newborn babies.

Dr David Olayemi explained that there are 6 geopoitical zones in Nigeria and that conditions vary in the different zones. He told the meeting that malnutrition is a major health and development issue that contributes to as much as 53% of the under 5 mortality.

Professor Paul Hunt of the University of Essex told the meeting the UN had done an incredible job in drafting and agreeing a large number of International human rights instruments but that the right to health needed to be mainstreamed. He also called for technical guidance to help in the mainstreaming. He said technical guidance on child mortality would be a terrific way forward but it is a two way street and the various actors needed to listen to one another.

Following the formal presentations when the chairman opened the floor for questions. The panel were thanked for their contributions and reminded that the preamble of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) tells us that the Child by reason of his mental and physical immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth which raised some critical questions.

1.     Why is the largest and most vulnerable group of children, the approximately 45 million unborn babies who are slaughtered every year, ignored when preventable child mortality is under discussion?  Surely, they were told, this is contrary to the provisions of the CRC and in point of fact represents a double standard.

2.     The panel were also asked to explain how legislating for abortion improves child mortality the whole point of which is to terminate babies’ lives resulting in a direct increase in child mortality? In this context the panel were asked if this is not also contrary to the whole concept of prevention of child mortality.

The chair on hearing the questions decided to wait for a number of additional questions, before any answers were attempted, by the panel and a number of questions ensued on issues such as communicative and non communicative diseases.

The two questions remained unanswered except for a reference by the WHO representative, who referred to the problem of maternal mortality instead of dealing with the issues raised.

Referendum on Children's rights

Ireland's Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald yesterday pledged that a stand-alone referendum would be held later this year with a wording that seeks to strengthen children’s rights.

Ms Fitzgerald said the Attorney General and senior officials were working on a wording that would stay as close as possible to the principles of a wording produced by the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution in 2010. This group endorsed a wording that sought to:

- Ensure the best interests of the child, applies in legal cases affecting them.

- Allow for the adoption of children – as many as 2,000 – originally from marital families who are in long-term foster care.

- Allow the State to intervene in a “proportionate” manner where parents have failed in their responsibilities.

The proposed referendum is being viewed with concern by pro-family organizations, which have significant misgivings about the entire proposal. The phrase “Children’s rights” is a deceptive façade.  It is not really about “rights” for the child.  It is about who will decide – the State or the parent?

Not only that, but based on the most recently released wording from our government for a possible referendum, all powers in this respect will be removed from the courts and placed exclusively into the hands of the Oireachtas (Houses of Parliament)!  

Parents would then have no recourse to the Courts, as all power would rest with the Oireachtas!

There is also concern about some of the issues highlighted by the Minister in announcing the intention to hold the Referendum, such as the adoption of children from "Marital Families" and the proposal for the State to intervene in a so called “proportionate” manner where parents are deemed to have failed in their responsibilities. If the Swedish experience is anything to go by this provision has resulted in dozens of children being removed from their homes, many, simply because the parents wanted to home school them.

 

The Irish Times report that two philantrophic groups have provided €1.5 million to an organisation that is likely to play a major role in campaigning for a Yes vote in the forthcoming children’s referendum.

The Campaign for Children describes itself as a “public information campaign” and is funded by Atlantic Philanthropies, founded by US billionaire Chuck Feeney, and the One Foundation, co-founded by Ryanair heir Declan Ryan and Deirdre Mortell.

It is understood the organisation is preparing to mount a major campaign in favour of changing the Constitution if the wording of the forthcoming referendum is approved by its board.

The organization is chaired by former Supreme Court judge Catherine McGuinness. Board members include Barnardos chief executive Fergus Finlay, ISPCC chief executive Ashley Balbirnie, Fleishman-Hillard PR director Mark Mortell and Tanya Ward, chief executive of the Children’s Rights Alliance.

Ms Fitzgerald, meanwhile, said a wording was being finalised on a referendum that would be stronger than a version produced by the previous government.

She said she hoped to secure cross-party support for the proposed amendment, and to ensure there was sufficient lead-in time to allow people to understand and debate the issues fully.

Threat of the Childrens' Rights referendum

Patrick Mc Crystal of Human Life International Ireland HLI (Ireland) has a startling full page advertisment in this month’s issue of the Alive newspaper. You can view the advertisement on this link:

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Patrick there is no doubt that there is an ongoing atttack on the family
in the economic, social, religious and the education spheres. It is also evident that this is happening throughout Europe.

Patrick also writes  

I can’t stand by and do nothing!

You may already have seen our full-page ad exposing the evils of the so-called Children’s “rights” movement in Ireland on rear of the Alive! newspaper this month.

In this ad, I have gone public on the horrendous threat this profoundly dangerous ideology represents.

The evils inherent in the so-called United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child have bothered me for years.

It is seeking to wrest utter control from parents and allow State takeover of any child – forced if necessary - at a whim.

This applies to any child, not just a neglected child.

Parents seem to be utterly oblivious!

I have been watching this deeply insidious movement in Ireland for some time.

Representatives from Barnardos, the ISPCC and others have been aggressively campaigning for a referendum. These groups have received millions of tax-payers money and would be set to receive a lot more if a referendum were passed.

            Changes to our Constitution are necessary to enact this legislation.

However, such groups haven’t been telling the Irish public the whole story.

A Global Movement:  This U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) has been signed up to by every country of the world except two: the U.S.A. and Somalia. 

It is the most widely signed-up to piece of legislation in the world.

Ireland signed up to it and ratified it in 1992, without even consulting the people!

            Disturbingly, this U.N. convention is in severe conflict with the Irish Constitution!   

Any country that ratifies it is legally bound to implement all its provisions.

It grants MASSIVE power to the State over the lives of private citizens.

           

What’s wrong with it?  Under this UNCRC, the State decides what is in the “best interest” of the child, not the parent.  If a parent is deemed to in any way subject a child to even “mental” abuse, let alone any other, or a child is deemed to be “discriminated” against, then that child can be removed from its parents.

Article 2 of the UNCRC indicates that irrespective of the parent’s religion, political or other opinion, the State must ensure each child doesn’t endure what it deems “discrimination” of any kind. 

What about a Catholic parent teaching the Church’s teaching on homosexual practice?  Such a parent would be deemed to be “discriminating” against their child.

What if a parent didn’t wish the child to have information on contraception, access to paedophilic “chat” internet rooms or other information?  Or wished to restrict who their child associated with if concerned about bad influences. 

Such parental restrictions would be “discrimination”.  The parent’s wishes would be over-ridden, as the child would have “freedom of association” as well as the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers”! (article 13)

“Protect” children from parents Unbelievably, article 2 states that children should be “protected” from “discrimination” or “punishment” arising from their parents beliefs, opinions or activities.  What about a parent refusing to cater to the whim of a child?  What about a child needing disciplined? What about a parent wanting to teach the ten commandments?

In Sweden, children are often in open conflict with their parents if the child’s wishes are not catered for.

Full provision is made in the UNCRC for removal of children from any parent in the  “best interest” of the child – should the State see fit! (articles 19, 20)

It is a formula for sheer societal anarchy – with those espousing Catholicism / Christian principles one of the principal losers!

Who will decide? The phrase “Children’s rights” is a deceptive façade.  It is not really about “rights” for the child.  It is about who will decide – the State or the parent?

Not only that, but based on the most recent released wording from our government for a possible referendum, all powers in this respect will be removed from the courts and placed exclusively into the hands of the Oireachtas!  

Parents would then have no recourse to the Courts, as all power would rest with the Oireachtas!

Atheistic Communism Please realise I am NOT exaggerating anything.

One Swedish international human rights lawyer tells me that the situation there is awful.  It is one of “unspeakable tyranny” for parents, particularly for who wish to rear their children to Christian principles. 

Thousands of children have been taken into care.  This lawyer told me Sweden is essentially a Communist State, with State takeover of children.

Parents are being reported on by their children, children are being put into care and/ or parents face imprisonment if they do not comply. 

Novena to Holy Face: As this monstrous attempted power grab by the State draws closer, amongst many responses, we must turn to God.

This thing is simply too big to be dealt with on a human level.

HLI Ireland launches this week a nine-day novena to the Holy Face of Jesus?  Shrove Tuesday is Feast of the HOLY FACE! 

Order a copy from our website.

The Holy Face devotion was revealed to Sister Mary of St Peter to precisely counteract Atheistic Communism.

Heaven surely knew what was coming upon the world under the guise of atheistic communism. In 1937, Pope Pius XI released his encyclical Divini Redemptoris, when he described the attack of atheistic communism on the world and what can be done about it.

Let’s pray for the downfall of the Children’s Referendum / legislation! Let’s seek God’s Face in a special way on Shrove Tuesday and indeed the rest of Lent.  God’s power can do it!

PS: Come to our excellent family conference in Green Isle Hotel, Dublin on Sunday 11^th March 2012!

In response to this threat of “children’s rights” –  and also in celebration of 30^th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Familiaris Consortio  ( On the Role of the Modern family in the Modern World) - we are co-sponsoring an exciting conference “Where is the Catholic family going in the Modern World?”

Teaming up with European Life Network and National Association of Catholic Families, we are delighted to have an excellent line-up of articulate speakers. 

Kathy Sinnott, Professor Ray Kinsella, statistician and social scientist from the Family Research Council Patrick Fagan, Dr Phil Boyle, Dr Tom Ward and others will enlighten and inspire us on the truth and beauty of God’s plan for family and equip us with the tools to robustly fight in defence of the family.

It is important to meet regularly and be refreshed in the truths of what we believe in and catch up with what your old acquaintances are up to and meet some new!

Put it in your diary and pass it on

Sex education as sexual sabotage

 We have reported on the issue of sex education programmes in the past and the fact that very young children are being given very explicit information. See also BLOGs of Oct. 26 2010

The Daily Mail in a recent article reports that parents across the UK are in revolt at the explicit nature of sex education being taught to very young children. It must be remembered that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds the prior right of parents to choose the type of education to be given to their children. It is good to see that parents are at last fighting back against a nanny state

John Smeaton of SPUC in a recent BLOG highlighted the fight for children's minds and hearts currently being waged in schools and advised readers that SPUC's Safe at School campaign is co-hosting a meeting in Westminster today December 1st, from 11am to 1pm, entitled: "Sex education as sexual sabotage". The other co-host is the Working Party on the Sexualisation of Children under the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group.
The speakers will include

• Dr Judith Reisman: the global expert on Alfred Kinsey, creator of the canon of modern sex education. It is his ‘scientific research’ which underpins what our children are being taught under the guise of sex ‘education’.

• Mrs Lynette Burrows: a leading commentator on the family. Her published works include “Fight for the Family: The Adults Behind Children’s Rights.”

World Population Day 2010 ‘Everyone Counts’

World Population Day was established in 1989 by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to call attention to urgent global issues.

The theme for this year’s population day, Sunday July 11 2010, “Everyone Counts” is a really important one and whatever the intention of UNFPA was in choosing the theme, it affirms the lives of every living human being irrespective of who they are and whether they are born or unborn. There are of course many groups of people throughout the world who are suffering from lack of food, water, health care and other essentials of life and every one of these lives counts. It incumbent on first world countries to ensure, that everyone can access the means of survival. Yes everyone, every human being counts

I say of UNFPA ‘whatever their intention was’ because they proclaim the right of every woman, man and child to enjoy a life of health and equal opportunity. Their stated goals are to advance

“policies and programs to reduce poverty and to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect.”

Sadly UNFPA, despite their wonderful rhetoric, are not known for upholding the right to life of unborn babies, they have a long history of being more interested in population control and the establishment of a human right to abortion than accepting that unborn babies are human beings who actually count, human beings with an equal right to life.

There are some rights, which the state has authority to confer (such as citizenship) but there are also fundamental rights of human beings. Fundamental rights, including the right to life, are inherent to, and derive from, the dignity of the human person. These rights are not bestowed by governments but must be recognised by them and protected in law. The right to life and equality is enshrined in a number of international human rights instruments.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins the articulation of the human values to be defended in terms of human rights.

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person."

There is no basis for dividing up the human family into persons and non-persons, but there is agreement from science that from fertilisation we all share a common humanity, that we are all members of the "human family", to use the Declaration's words. The attempts to disenfranchise some members of the human family from moral consideration has led to justifications of intolerable abuses of human rights including slavery and genocide. The Declaration, following the United Nations Charter, rejects discrimination against any members of the "human family", and requires the "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family".

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states that: "The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth." This is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world.
Article 6 of the CRC is also relevant
States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

The destruction of human life by abortion is the greatest human rights struggle of our time. The World Health Organization estimates that 42 million abortions are performed worldwide each year—a profound violation of the equal dignity and rights of human beings and one that requires urgent and sustained attention to ensure the survival of every human being particularly the most vulnerable every one of whom definitely counts.

Children's Rights

For some time now, so-called ‘children’s rights’ groups have been trying to have a specific reference to the rights of children inserted into Bunreacht na hÉireann, the Constitution of Ireland. This is related to the incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Irish law (it was signed up to by the Irish Government nearly twenty years so, but it has yet to be made part of Irish law). At present, Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland bears the title ‘The Family’. It is a very sane, sensible and comprehensive statement, declaring that:

‘The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
‘The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State. […]’

So far, so good, you might say. There are other clauses or sub-sections that are part of the same Article, but the two quoted above are the most relevant here.
Article 42 of the Constitution of Ireland bears the title ‘Education’, and, among other declarations, states:

‘The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children. […]
‘In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.’

Just last week, however, an all-party parliamentary group agreed to a replacement wording for Article 42 (whose title would be changed to ‘Children’), and it is planned that this change will be put by the people for acceptance by way of a Referendum.

But – the new wording seeks to prioritise rights for children, and the reference to ‘Family’ is deleted. Where, formerly, children could in exceptional circumstances be removed by the State ‘by appropriate means’, the proposed new wording would allow children to be removed ‘by proportionate means’ from their parents ‘regardless of their marital status’. Children could be removed from their parents and placed for adoption even if their parents are married. This is a very serious situation, and it is even more so in light of the ‘Civil Partnership’ Bill that is at present making its way through the Dáil (parliament). Although this Bill does not specifically refer to the adoption of children, nevertheless it must be borne in mind that it is considered to be just a stepping-stone to the introduction of laws that would allow homosexuals and lesbians to adopt children. This is what such groups are calling for, and they will not be satisfied until they achieve their aims.

Mr. John Waters, writing in the Irish Times last week, said:
‘

There are many sinister elements in this amendment, which most media voices, being on the same ideological hymnsheet as the Oireachtas committee, will refrain from pointing out, and may indeed seek to suppress. … The insertion in the Constitution of the ostensibly unexceptionable idea that “the welfare and best interests of the child shall be the first and paramount consideration” in all disputes concerning “guardianship, adoption, custody, care or upbringing” … of children, is the cutting edge of this underhand initiative. This would mean that, in marital situations, the previous inalienable and imprescriptable rights of the family will be supplanted by a pseudo-principle which is nowhere spelt out and which will be defined at the whim of judges, social workers and so-called “child experts”.
‘Whereas the State can at present intervene in families only in exceptional circumstances, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty to their children, it will, if this amendment is passed, have the right to interfere, with force if necessary (by “proportionate means”) if parents are deemed by agents of the State, according to criteria not laid down, to have failed parental responsibilities. In other words it will replace an objective criterion with a subjective one. Should the State’s agents decide that parents have “failed “ for “such a period of time as shall be prescribed by law”, the child or children may be put up for adoption. […]’