this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
65 points (90.1% liked)

Canada

7185 readers
252 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
65
There's no such thing as 'parents' rights' (rabble.ca)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 40 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I read the article, and it made me think that I can't think of anything like a Childrens' Bill of Rights. Just basically thinking out loud here but...

Everyone talks about wanting to protect children, but there is no basic framework in place to treat them differently in protecting their individual personhood. Something basic, written in simple language, that a young child can understand, to make sure they are treated fairly and safely. Like a little laminated card you can give children when they get to school.

Children should have some agency in their own care, or to be able to protect other children, but we leave all the legal action in the hands of those who would be the ones causing them harm. It just seems odd to me.

Disclaimer: Not a parent, not Canadian, just someone who came across this and started thinking....

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Ahh, no wonder I never heard of this...

From Wikipedia:

The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it. It has been claimed that American opposition to the convention stems primarily from political and religious conservatives.

πŸ˜”

Most notably, at the time several states permitted the execution and life imprisonment of juvenile offenders, a direct contravention of Article 37 of the convention.

πŸ˜”πŸ˜”

During his 2008 campaign for President, Senator Barack Obama described the failure to ratify the convention as "embarrassing" and promised to review the issue but, as President, he never did. No President of the United States has submitted the treaty to the United States Senate requesting its advice and consent to ratification since the US signed it in 1995.

πŸ˜”πŸ˜”πŸ˜”

This would make me feel very alone as a child to know this... 😒

Edit: Been reading more and kinda sad child marriage isn't part of it. Also corporal punishment should go away too.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Full agreement, but also I think adolescents in particular need defined rights as they grow into adulthood. A 5 year old, 8 year old, and 10 year old need similar rights, but a 14 year old needs a 4 year path to adulthood that makes clear how their rights and responsibilities in the eyes of the law increase. In my country the only place a 16 year old is an adult is on trial.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Tried to look up where you were referring, and the first few results all come up for where I live...

Juevenile Law Center

Pennsylvania is one of only 13 states with no limit on how young a juvenile can be tried in adult court and exposed to adult jails and prisons. In Lawrence County in 2009, for example, 11-year-old Jordan Brown was charged in adult court for the fatal shooting of his father’s fiancee. He was too young to shave but faced a mandatory life sentence.