Children in Politics

[jBirch]

Interesting article in the Globe & Mail today:

OTTAWA — Canada is failing to live up to its international obligations by denying children their right to influence government decisions, the Senate human-rights committee says in a report critical of the lackadaisical manner in which international treaties are implemented.

Released Thursday, the report from the all-party committee calls on the federal government to appoint a children's commissioner to stand up for what it describes as a voiceless segment of Canadian society. It also says Ottawa should take steps to eliminate spanking and other forms of corporal punishment of children.

“Children's voices rarely inform government decisions, yet they are one of the groups most affected by government action or inaction,” says the committee's 296-page report, titled "Children: The Silenced Citizens."

“Children are not merely underrepresented; they are almost not represented at all,” it says
Senator Jim Munson spoke with reporters Thursday following the release of an all-party report on children's rights.

Senator Jim Munson spoke with reporters Thursday following the release of an all-party report on children's rights. (CP)
Internet Links

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada ratified in 1992, puts children at the centre of family, community and culture, but the senators say there is a gap between “the rhetoric and the reality” of children's lives in Canada.

“Children must be in the room,” Liberal Senator Jim Munson told a news conference. “Children must be at the table.

“Too often we dictate … to children, and it's just not right.”

The committee, which made 24 recommendations on the rights and freedoms of children, said many Canadians continue to resist full implementation of the UN convention.

It calls Ottawa's commitment to children's rights inadequate because of “jurisdictional complexities, the absence of effective institutions, an uncertain approach to human rights law, and lack of transparency and political involvement.”

The senators said compliance with children's rights undertakings needs better accountability, increased parliamentary and public input, and “a more open approach that promotes transparency and enhanced political will.”

“The Convention on the Rights of the Child is not solidly embedded in Canadian law, in policy, or in the national psyche,” says the report.

“Canadians are too often unaware of the rights enshrined in the convention, while governments and courts use it only as a strongly worded guiding principle with which they attempt to ensure that laws conform, rather than acting as if they are bound by it.”

“Also, no body is in charge of ensuring that the convention is effectively implemented in Canada, and the political will is lacking. Implementation is key to making the convention work, and for Canada to claim that it fully respects the rights and freedoms of its children, it should improve its level of actual compliance.”

Ottawa does not have effective mechanisms to ensure compliance with its international human-rights-treaty obligations, the report says.

It calls for a formal system to monitor implementation of international conventions and treaties, including – in the case of child rights – a group to co-ordinate and monitor federal legislation and policy along with an independent children's commissioner to monitor progress and meet with provincial child advocates.

[jBirch]

And the report proper:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/c...p10apr07-e.htm

[the maple epee]

We all know what this means...

A senior cabinet position for Dora the Explorer.

[Inquartata]

Ah, the UN. An inexhaustible font of silliness...

And Canada's politicians are as gullible as ours, it seems.

I look forward to the Convention on the Rights of the Deceased, and the Canadian report on compliance with same...

[Gav]

Is there a particular reason why the kids need some sort of say outside of the representation that their parents give them? I thought it was the parents job to represent the kids till such time as they were deemed legally old enough to look after themselves?

[scrapinpeg]

This is taking it a bit too far.

We do want to give a voice to those who are not heard -- but only if society OUGHT to hear from them in the first place. It's wrong to deny people a vote based on race or income or religion. It's not wrong to deny a voice to children.

Children are generally incapable of understanding societal issues and their effects on the community and larger polity. That's why we don't let them vote until they're a certain age. Could that age be lower? Perhaps. But not much lower. Do you really want a 5-year-old whose frontal lobes haven't yet developed rational thinking to decide matters affecting your life, liberty and property? Is it wise to let a prepubescent 12-year-old to have a say in issues requiring social maturity? There is a good reason why most democracies wait until the end of adolescence to let people have a voice.

[Lucifer]

There's a difference to providing a voice and giving actual power. I'm much in support of children having a voice in politics, particularly affairs that concern them. I'm really disgusted at the way kids are generally treated. Just because they're kids doesn't mean they're not worthy of respect!

In fact, when I go fight with my daughter's school, it's usually them saying "she's just a kid, you can't listen to her", and me saying "she's not lying, and she knows what she's talking about".

Then there are all those parents out there who turn their kids into servants. All the kid's good for is waiting on the parent hand and foot, apparently. And the parents who let the day care raise the kids, find the kid at 18 years old and they don't know each other at all. (not that I'm opposed to day care by itself, I'm opposed to daycare substituting for a parent/child relationship)

Yeah, kids need their own representation, most parents still won't do it. Hell, most parents in the US won't even represent themselves politically, why should you expect them to represent their kids?