Talk:Children's rights movement

Grave?
I have some objections to the description of children's welfare in the United States as 'grave'. I think it ought to be noted that children there are free from forcible conscription, execution, legal trafficking, and the issues that are generally discussed in a children's rights forum. To lump this country in with, say, Iran, only justifies the way countries with laws that persecute children operate. I've been to the United States and, if anything, the kids are dying from affluence. 97.90.73.7 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Children's law in the US is grave. In the US teachers and administrators have either the effective or the legal authority to hold children in solitary confinement (even over hair length - see http://www.schoollawsection.org/Hunn.html Toungate v. Bastrop Independent School District, Board of Trustees of Bastrop Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Toungate), to force them to submit to hostile psychological evaluation, to force them to take dangerous drugs including amphetamines and antipsychotics, to restrict their speech even off campus (Morse v. Frederick), to ignore bullying or even to encourage bullies to torture children, to define children asking questions in class as a quasi-criminal disruption of discipline, and to make false and unsubstantiated allegations of abuse which allow government sponsored "social workers" to break up families, put children in foster homes where they are abused, make false criminal complaints against parents, while the states' false informers and "social workers" are immune from civil or criminal action. Children in the US have no right to an appropriate education for their mental age, no right to work, no right to eat, no right to medical care, no right to protest their treatment, no right to decide the use of their own bodies, no right to challenge their supposed guardians, no right to be tried as children for criminal allegations, no right to contract, no right to determine the disposition of their own property, no right to opt out of compulsory state indoctrination, no right to choose their own religion, no right to free speech, no political representation ... basically no rights whatsoever for themselves - just occasional legal sops to their guardians/ owners/ exploiters.

Those who in any way support the current system of children's law in the US are in my opinion among the most unethical scum to have ever have lived. Enon (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's refrain from talking about the subject and stick to discussing the article. • Freechild talk 15:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment
I reverted last anon changes because it removed lots of informations and was very POV. If you disagree please discuss here first.The Son of Oink 04:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

more information wanted
It says in the article that "children served as couriers, intelligence collectors, and other underground resistance workers in opposition to Hitler's regime." This is very interesting. Can anyone give more information about this?

Why the Title?
Why 'children's rights movement' and not just 'Children's Rights'?
 * Fair point, but the article is more narrow than just children's right, focussing mostly on attempts to establish them... anyway, "Children's rights" redirects to this article. Herostratus 16:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are the best websites I've found about child slavery (or labor). Do you want to add them to the article? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRchild.htm And another: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAchild.htm Sundiiiaaa 18:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are excellent links, yes, please add them. Herostratus 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't know how.  Could you please do it for me?  Thanks.  Sundiiiaaa 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, done. Just look (in edit mode) at the "External links" section to see the format, which is: "*" if it's part of a list (usually the case), followed by "[", followed by complete URL, followed by a space, followed by the description (which may include spaces), followed by "]". Herostratus 17:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. Thank you.  I must ask you to please carefully & slowly read that article about the USA children, notice the ages (age 4) & work conditions (hands cut off) & pay & hours, & don't you think we should change the title of that website to say "Child slavery in USA in 20th century"?  I guess we can't, but it should be.  Sundiiiaaa 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The article says "By the late 1800s, the orphan train had stopped running altogether, but its principles lived on." But in the Children's Aid Society web link it says the last orphan train was in 1929. May I change 1800 to 1929? Sundiiiaaa 22:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, that seems like a reliable source. You should probably ref it. Herostratus 02:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to reference it but I can't do the ref so it works. Can you, please?Sundiiiiii 01:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't need the ref, should it? The link is just 2 lines up from 1929. Sundiiiiii 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

More on children's individual rights
Saw a news report some time ago about children in third-world countries (and regions of 1st world countries) who work because they have no other option. The piece was not about slave labor, but about how many governments have laws written for the benefit of children as workers. Meaning they have the rights as individuals as opposed to their parents having control over them. The piece stated that the US and maybe one other country were the only two that had no children's rights (from that perspective), because in the U.S. parents have total say over their kids' lives. (I Guess that jibes with the controversy section; but I don't see why that can't be drawn out more) I have been intrigued since then with the concept; that even as we pass laws to protect children from society, some acknowledge children's rights to be functioning individuals within their society.

Does anyone have more on this aspect of children's rights? 66.57.225.77 08:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Creating a new article
I am going to create a new article that addresses children's rights from an international perspective, separate from this article addressing the movement. I invite feedback, suggestions or ideas here. - Freechild 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that is a great idea. Have you made any progress? DavidHGrateful (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

RE: Convention on the Rights of the Child
If there is information about the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it should go on the page pertaining to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This page is about the children's rights movement, which is distinctly not the same topic. • Freechild   'sup?   00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the difference. Herostratus (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me point out the obvious then: the Convention on the Rights of the Child is an internationally-recognized instrument of the United Nations that more than 190 countries around the world have acknowledged as a legally-binding document. The children's rights movement is a grassroots movement existent for almost 100 years led by a variety of individuals and organizations, including Jane Addams, Save the Children, Marian Wright Edelman, and Om Prakash Gurjar. They are related; they are not the same. • Freechild   'sup?   02:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, thanks. They are related. Certainly this article can mention the Convention, then, right? Herostratus (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely, one hundred percent it can mention the Convention. However, the edits I responded to above were specific criticisms of the CRC that had absolutely nothing to do with the children's rights movement. I made the mistake of not specifically citing the edits. • Freechild   'sup?   03:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, looking more closely at the edits in question, I see your point, although I would hope that something could be taken and used in the spirit of cooperation, as opposed to just reverting each other. Herostratus (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing some problems with this article. For one, the term Child is most often taken to mean persons of (very approximately) 12 and under, as opposed to teens or youth... I think there must be an article on teen or youth rights... although the CRC defines "child" as "minor", this is more or less a secondary definition. We need to (1) decide what "child" means in the context of this article and define it (multiple times if the meaning changes within the article) and (2) if we are meaning "child" as "minor", consider breaking the article into two aricles and defining child down. Because it doesn't seem to make much sense to me to have an article "Movement for the rights of persons 0-17 years old". That is a huge range and the needed rights of young children can be quite different than for older teens... Herostratus (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with your age analysis if that issue wasn't already defined in the new article I just started called children's rights. Does the age consideration need to be addressed twice? • Freechild   'sup?   20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK, but what definition of "child" are we using for this article. Minor? or pre-pubescent person? or what? Herostratus (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll see that I added a definition to the lead. • Freechild   'sup?   18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did, but I'm having trouble with it. There must be, it seems to me, a huge huge difference between a rights movement for say eight year olds and say sixteen year olds. The former would be focussed on protections while the latter would exhibit a tension between protection and emancipation, n'est-ce pas? Herostratus (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Logically that might be the case; however, I have not seen the research that would support that contention - which doesn't mean it doesn't exist - it just means I haven't seen it. The dilemma of the children's rights/youth rights differentiation is that it appears largely arbitrary without reliable sources, which the latter seems to lack oftentimes. There are some, like Robert Epstein's The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen and Mike Males's Scapegoat Generation. WP could prove to be the right ground for bringing those sources and other sources together - but even that would be tantamount to original research. The only statements I have found distinguishing CR from YR I have used in Youth rights and History of youth rights in the United States; however, they are not significant enough primary sources. I would love to see otherwise. • Freechild   'sup?   20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
Removing large swaths of text with reliable sources is in conflict with the collaborative nature of this apparently sensitive topic. If an editor is wanting to make potentially controversial edits perhaps they should discuss them here first. I have reverted the most recent example of this, and would appreciate any dialog here. • Freechild   'sup?   19:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. First example: "Cornell University reports that a child is a person, not a subperson, and the parent has absolute interest and possession of the child. The term "child" does not necessarily mean minor but can include adult children as well as adult nondependent children." 1. The link doesn't work ("Page not found"); 2.Cornell University reports ... what? A University is a corporate body, it cannot 'report' anything. Someone based at Cornell can report something - perhaps their own opinion. Who? What? 3. What is a subperson? Who has ever said anyone is a 'subperson'? These are comments without context; 4. 'the parent has absolute interest and possession of the child' - what does this mean? And how can anyone 'report' this - it's clearly a matter of opinion; 5. The term 'child' does not necessarily mean minor, etc. - in what context? Who says? On what basis? What's the difference between adult children and adult nondependent children? Is the second not merely a subset of the first? These statements are tendentious, confusing, subjective and (certainly without the citation, and probably with) meaningless. That's why I removed them. --Rbreen (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Second example: 'Criticism' - of what? Of the Children's rights movement? No, of the UN Convention. This is already a section about the Convention, which has its own detailed article. Furthermore, this focuses almost entirely on the issue of US Criticism of the Convention - despite the fact that the US is not a signatory. This is completely unbalanced (a) because it is focused on a minor aspect (the US attitude) and (b) because it is focused mainly on criticisms of it. This gives undue weight to a minority view. --Rbreen (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Rights vs. Welfare
A large section of this article seems to be about children's welfare, not children's rights. Now, clearly this is a fuzzy area discursively. Whether it is is forcing a kid to go to the midwest, to school, to the poorhouse, to be drugged, whatever, someone these days is probably going to see it as promoting 'Children's Rights.'' But we shouldn't be signing off on that claim unless they were actually making it. I am going to guess, in particular, that the Orphan Train and Childrens Aid people in the 19th century were not using a discourse of "rights" to advance their cause. Can we either come up with evidence that they were, or remove them to a more appropriate article? Ethan Mitchell (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Child's right to genital integrity/autonomy
How shall we address this here? DavidHGrateful (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)