Utterly Meaningless

No black helicopters….yet.

Instapundit picked up on the story.
instap...05.php

I have black helicopters over the house just about every day. However, to disguise them, the government paints them military green.

Ironically enough, Germany is one of the countries where homeschoolers will be arrested. Schulpflicht, the duty to go to school, is part of their constitution.

Darren, I don’t expect to persuade you on this issue, but I would be interested in your take on this article from a Belgian homeschoolers:

brusse...e/1114

The article begins:

“Yesterday my husband Paul Belien, the editor of this website, was summoned to the police station and interrogated. He was told that the Belgian authorities are of the opinion that, as a homeschooler, he has not adequately educated his children and, hence, is neglecting his duty as a parent, which is a criminal offence. The Ministry of Education has asked the judiciary to press charges and the judiciary told the police to investigate and take down his statement.”

The Dutch authorities run Ayaan Hirsi Ali out of Parliament and out of the country because of her un-PC criticism of Muslim female genital mutilation and other lifestyle issues.

I know you think Farris is just using the UN CRC to scare the “sheeple,” but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Darren??

My argument wasn’t with the Belgian couple. Instead, it’s with the self-described “white trash hillbilly” who equates signing a form with the Holocaust.

And, I’m not sure Farris is right even twice/day. 🙂

“Darren,” I haven’t kept up with overall events in Belgium, and our residency there was only for two years, so I don’t have a deep grasp of Belgian politics, but as for Rules — and some strict enforcement — they’ve got ’em.

When we lived near Mons (’97-’99), we did get a letter from the education bureaucracy (not the local school) wanting to know why our children weren’t in school. I replied with a letter explaining our choice (in English, since my French was of the restaurant&shopping-variety), and was not bothered after that. The kids got their diplomas in ’98, so for one year, school attendance wasn’t an issue. Obviously this was before the apparent 2003 implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Now how the Belgian attitude towards rules (lots w. many ignored by the populace — in Wallonie there was a large black market concerning ‘in kind’ work to skirt taxes) plays out concerning the father being taken to the police station, and for what reason, only time will tell. (one of the comment writers at the original site was of the opinion that the detention wasn’t “about homeschooling”)

As with our letter from the school authorities asking for compliance with local laws which the NATO SOFA grants relief from, the radio & tv authorities also ‘asked’ us (form letter) to pay Belgian radio and television taxes. The state of Maryland tried the same thing with us concerning state taxes when we lived in government quarters on Ft. Meade in the early 1980s, something that would have made us Maryland citizens & obligated to pay state taxes wherever we moved unless we became state citizens elsewhere. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, I guess, but we paid no one.

The most obvious everyday example of ‘stricter than thou’ rules that I saw in Belgium was car wheels touching the painted lines on the roads. In one town with a near-90 degree curve in the road going through the middle of town, policemen would stand around the corner to watch the wheels of cars as they negotiated the curve. They’d flag down the ones they saw where the wheels touched, or went over, the middle line, and ticket the driver.

Even as military who were under the auspices of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), we had to have Belgian residency papers. We didn’t have to have that in Germany (where we lived for 18 years).

Of course, I wish the writers of the Brussels Journal all the best, and hope they get local support because protests do (or did) happen. One Sunday, we drove through one town where what looked like the entire population was staging a garbage protest. They had (mostly recylclables) strung up around the town, with placards and signs out to the city limits. I can’t remember the exact reason for the protest, or the outcome, but protesting is (or was?) possible. Another time my daughters were stranded in Brussels after a day of swimming because of a wildcat strike by the train drivers.

There are lots and lots and lots of rules in Belgium (as there are here — and more every day) but, as of seven years ago, it wasn’t a police state.

If it’s one reality I’ve had driven home over the years it’s that things are seldom what they seem. Knowing the deep background of anything very often turns ‘the obvious’ on its head. This doesn’t mean that crap doesn’t happen, only that trying to find out why the crap is happening isn’t as simple as it looks.

I agree with you on aspects of this. It certainly is a leap to gassing Jews and I don’t really know where that comes from. The problem, however, lies in the ambiguity of the langugae of the text. In some cases, it is meaningless and I don’t know how the broad statements could possibly direct national policy in any way. (Article 9 might actually prove to be of benefit here as we do not subject cases to judicial review before removing children from the home). But the broadness of it could also lead easily to undermining parental authority. My main issue is with the fact that our constitution does not give our central government this kind of authority, so why on earth would we submit to an international authority?

But Article 14? Could that not be interpreted that I cannot say that one religion is right over another? Now I’m not for trashing religion, but I maintain my right to raise my child as a Christian as vehemently as I maintain your right not to…or another parent’s right to raise their child Muslim or whatever.

Anyway, I’m starting to take over your comment box. Not that you are interested in my opinion, but I posted on the CRC awhile back. No, I don’t think it is the end of homeschooling, but it has other implications that I do believe are serious.

gottse...e.html

It is wise to take treaties seriously. They are, after all, the highest law in the land. But this “treaty” will never be voted on, much less passed, by the US Senate. It’s just a way for Farris to beat the drum (and scare the sheeple) for his social agenda: Parents’ Rights Amendment, FMA, etc.

Much ado about absolutely nuthin’.

Next he’ll be calling you Derwood.

Only if I can call him Endora (or “Mom,” as the case may be).

Darren/Derwood, which Dick would you want to be? York or Seargeant?

So many identity crises, so little time.

“Only if I can call him Endora (or “Mom,” as the case may be).”

In Endora’s case, that would be ‘Mother,’ if you please. ‘Mom,’ indeed!

I wouldn’t be so sure it will NEVER be voted on or passed. We do have a movement in the United States pushing for ratification which concluded a series of seminars and meetings in late May of this year. Clinton signed it. Bush has made some statement in support of it and signed a portion of it (I don’t remember the details…something to do with child sex rings which obviously would be something the US should not support)We have a large group in this country which supports US submission to the UN, including deference to international law over our own laws. Of course, we also have a strong movement that thinks we should get ourselves out of the UN entirely. But I am not so confident in either side to make sweeping claims about what will never happen. This is what many are working toward…with or without mandates from the UN. The UN serves only as an additonal qualification to their views.

It is interesting to see how it plays out in those progressive nations which have adopted it. It may have caused some difficulties, but it has not made homeschooling illegal, by any means.

Don’t let the motives of those offering a possible solution keep you from fully analyzing the possible threat, Daryl.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a speech in 2005 “In writing the Constitution, the Framers looked to other systems and to thinkers from other lands for inspiration, and they understood that the new nation would be bound by “the Law of Nations,” today called international law.”

Judicial decisions are binding and don’t need the Senate to ratify a treaty before they allow their influence in our country. So while you right to be cautious of those desiring to tamper with the Consitution with an ammendment, we must be equally cautious of those who want to tamper with the Consitution through judicial activism.

judicial activism–A phrase that ought to be banned from polite society. It is straight out of Through the Looking Glass.

To expand on this a bit. Was Griswold an example of judicial activism? How about Loving? Do you want to go back to the days when the State told you whether or not you could use birth control and who you could marry? Those were both decisions that overturned state law. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, it overturned a highly popular law.

Judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder. The signers of the Declaration of Independence recognized that international norms were important. I’m not particularly concerned about a judge echoing that sentiment 225 years later.

Point taken Daryl. But when a judge wants to look at international law or UN resolutions and possibly excuse our law that’s a activism. I get a little skittish when judges reference laws of other countries, whose leaders we didn’t elect as support for their decisions. They are there to interpret the Constitution not international law.

My friend DARYL is “ruthlessly sane,” but some guy named “Darren” seems to have taken over his blog.

Dana says gassing Jews is a leap but the language troubles her: “Could that not be interpreted that I cannot say that one religion is right over another? … I maintain my right to raise my child as a Christian as vehemently as I maintain your right not to…or another parent’s right to raise their child Muslim or whatever.”

I began to read “The End of Faith” last week, after hearing author Sam Harris call for a reason-based revolution as our last international hope, in an NPR “To the best of our knowledge” interview. His point is it’s all the same kind of troublesome, to gas Jews or to “vehemently” teach one religion as right over the others. If we violently destroy ourselves and our world, it’s no better because we did it for OUR god rather than yours. And every sacred text including the Christian Bible claims to be the one worth killing and dying for.

Explosive (but definitely not violent!) stuff…

wpr.or...a.html

truthd...rview/

I dunno, Dilbert. Sounds like them darned fureners are gonna take away our kids and our Bibles!

Or is it the furener hsers we are supposed to be worried about?

All of these helicopter noises are making it very hard to sort out who is out to get me!

And, fyi, an “activist judge” is one who wants to interpret the Constitution — as handed down by the holy and infallible men of the American Revolution — in some way I disagree with.

Nance

Daryl,

The question is, why are xian homeschoolers afraid of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? What is it about “the fundamental human rights and the cultural values of the child itself and of others” that scares them so?

To “vehemently teach one religion over another” is not what I am defending. I am defending my right to share my faith with my children. And other parents to do the same. And your right to tell your children that Christianity is the root of all evil for all I really care. It is your house and the state has no business interfering without probable cause.

And it isn’t “the fundamental human rights and the cultural values of the child itself and of others” that “scares” me. Although I see that I will be jailed by your philosophy if we decide to carry it out in this country. Because the idea of the Christian God is just too terrible.

The problem is in the principle. We are a sovereign nation and do not need to be surrendering to officials we have not elected. And the ambiguity of the language. There is no way of predicting how it would be interpreted. In Germany, it is being interpreted to support their laws against homeschooling. In others it is being interpreted as giving parents the right to homeschool.

And that same phrase about the human rights of the child, along with cultural respect and religious respect…is being used by German homeschoolers to support their accusations against the German state of human rights abuses. Because no “state party” may do all these things that are listed out. Christianity is not being respected, children are being tormented (sometimes by officials as well) and parents, based on their religious convictions, are not allowed to shield their children from what they view as harmful to their children’s cultural and religious background. In direct violation to documents from the EU, and, by some interpretations, this CRC document as well.

Can a thing become a useful law if we so readily can come to opposite conclusions on the same passages? And not just you and me, but courts of law in the countries affected? Which means it will be left up to the personal opinion of judges ruling in the case here, should we ever get that far…

and just as a point of clarification, we as Christians do believe we are to “love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.’ Not gun them down and gas them. Yes, some wicked things have been done in the name of religion bus some wicked things have been done in the name of its eradication.

Hitler, Stalin, Mau Tse Dung, Pol Pott, to name a few.

Dana writes: The problem is in the principle. We are a sovereign nation and do not need to be surrendering to officials we have not elected. And the ambiguity of the language. There is no way of predicting how it would be interpreted.
******
But this is nothing new. Language is ever so malleable. Within the US hsing community, we cannot even agree on who is a “real homeschooler” or a “real unschooler” or what “inclusive” means.

For example: near me, there is (was? does it still exist?) a hsing support group called Sonshine something or other. They said they were “inclusive.” This, I came to learn, meant they were a Christian group and any sort of Christian hser or anyone interested in being exposed to a lot of Christian activities was welcome to join.

This is a common use of the word “inclusive” in hsing circles.

So it ain’t just those darned fureners who offer us ambiguous language.

Not to mention that “surrendering” is not the same as “referencing” . . .

Nance

What a free association of individuals decides to do is a very different thing than what a legal document is designed to do. Your homeschooling example, while sad, is irrelavent. To ratify a treaty is to agree to its terms and surrender to the authority of governing bodies designed to oversee their implementation.

Yes, surrendering is different than referencing. Where has referencing come up? Germany is being accused of human rights abuses by homeschoolers. It is set to go to trial in the court of International Human Rights in Strassbourg. Should the court there determine they are indeed in violation, they will have to yield their national sovereignty and change the laws and constitution based on a foreign body.

Although such a decision would favor Christian homeschoolers (which the estimated 550 German homeschoolers are predominantly), I am uncomfortable with that. Other than the fact that Germany on its own decided to surrender to this. This is not “referencing.” It is surrendering. Their choice, yes. Not one I choose. One I will continually speak against.

I have no doubt you will continue to fight against something you fear.

I think you need to come up with a better tactic though — the “principle” that language is confusing won’t get very far.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on any of this but would pay more attention and try to learn more — and maybe others would too and be on your side — if the message made more sense.

I just don’t think anyone here in the US is going to seriously buy that Christians are being kept down by “the man.” Hell, they are “the man!” 🙂

And coming out against “fundamental human rights” won’t get you far either.

It’s just not a good “meme” to be pushing.

Anyway, maybe some of the smoke will clear some day and I will see better info about all of this — without all the spin.

Nance