So,
in my last post, I focused
my comments on the "perception" that Christian Examiner author, Gregory Tomlin, wants the reader to leave with concerning Heiner Bielefeldt's
statement on freedom of religion and belief in regards to children. (Document E)
| GA | 70th | 05/08/2015 | A/70/286 | Interim
report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief
|
E
F
S
A
C
R
|
About the only thing the author got right, Bielefeldt's name and title.
My primary focus in looking at the original document surrounds this statement by the Examiner:
Bielefeldt also claimed that the traditional family is the environment
in which the child best develops his or her religious ideals and first
learns to express them. As a result, he said, any attempt by the state
to remove the child based on the pretext that the religious opinions of
the parents may be harmful is "illegitimate."
Taken at face-value, it can be manipulated to justify any number of abhorrent practices as I noted previously. It was this thought that begged me to look at exactly what was stated. Hint: the verbiage - traditional family - it ain't in there! Nor is word "'illegitimate'". Tomlin, in his zeal to advance his agenda, has ascribed words, thoughts, and conclusions to Bielefeldt that are not present in the original document.
What I did find under "role of parents", the importance of the family unit or structure as a whole in the "upbringing and development" of a child as a gestalt.:
While recognizing the status of the child as a rights holder, the Convention on the Rights of the Child also reflects the awareness that the child needs a supportive environment to realize his or her rights. That supportive environment is usually provided by the family. According to the preamble of the Convention, the child “should grow up in a family environment”, since the family provides “the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children”[6]
Further along, in paragraph 22, we have recognition of the diversity of the family unit or family structure:
Given the child’s dependency on an enabling family environment, albeit with recognition of the variety of family forms, parents have the primary responsibility for supporting the child in the exercise of his or her human rights.[7]
No where in this document does the phrase "traditional family" - in essence one man, one woman marriage - appear.
In regards to government interventions that Tomlin seems concerned with. Bielefeldt continuously highlights the importance of recognizing "the need of the child for an enabling environment" but balances that need with not "overrid[ing], ignor[ing] or marginaliz[ing] the rights of the child." [7]
Bielefeldt recognizes the inherent controversies surrounding the relationship between the rights of the child and parental rights in regards to government interventions, but is "convinced that such anxieties cannot be sustained on the basis of an appropriate reading of the Convention, seen in conjunction with other relevant international standards."[8] Noting that "some State agencies
could be tempted to use the child’s right to freedom of religion or belief as a pretext for undue interference", Bielefeldt does not state, as Tomlin insinuates "any attempt by the state to remove the child based on the pretext that the religious opinions of the parents may be harmful is "illegitimate.""
What he does say,
However, based on an appropriate understanding of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the fear that article 14 of the Convention could legitimize the erosion of parental rights seems unsubstantiated. Instead of being part of the problem, the Convention can and should be part of the solution. In conjunction with other human rights instruments, article 14 can help to tackle the problem of abusive State interventions. Rather than eroding parental rights in the sphere of freedom of religion or belief, article 14 corroborates, and at the same time further qualifies, those rights by acknowledging their significance from the specific perspective of the rights of the child.[9]
,,,
Moreover, situations may emerge in which the best interests of the child may actually require State interventions to protect him or her, for example against neglect, domestic violence or harmful practices. Intervening measures must always be carried out with empirical and normative diligence and furthermore they are connected to substantive and procedural safeguards.[10]
This overall theme of balance and restraint is carried throughout Bielefeldt's entire report,
The Convention on the Rights of the Child combines the recognition of the child as a genuine rights holder with respect for the rights and duties of parents or legal guardians in directing the child in the exercise of his or her human rights. However, situations can occur in which State interventions in the sphere of parental rights are necessary, for instance to protect the child from neglect, domestic violence or harmful practices. According to article 19, paragraph 1, of the Convention, “States parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.” In the context of the right to health, article 24, paragraph 3, of the Convention obliges States to “take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children".[15-16]
,,,
As the Committee on the Rights of the Child has pointed out in its general comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration: “Given the gravity of the impact on the child of separation from his or her parents, such separation should only occur as a last resort measure, as when the child is in danger of experiencing imminent harm or when otherwise necessary; separation should not take place if less intrusive measures could protect the child. ”Under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention, “competent authorities subject to judicial review” have to “determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child”. Even in such a situation, the child should be able to “maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests” (article 9, paragraph 3).[16]
Again no where in this document does Bielefeldt give parents the unfettered power Tomlin implies. Had Tomlin actually read the report, and not just the press release, it would have been clear. By glossing over, or ignoring, what was clearly stated in the release, “Religious
community leaders should support the elimination of harmful practices
inflicted on children, including by publicly challenging problematic
religious justifications for such practices whenever they occur,” Tomlin lost a chance to prevent more instances of
religious child maltreatment.
Children also have the right to freedom of religion or belief, and that must be protected
