The repeat victimization, being forced to prostitution and drug addiction are among the issues that in many cases emerge as the consequences of child sexual abuse in the victims.
For example, the 8-year-old girl to whom rape or sexual abuse had happened would definitely not forget the incident of the rape as a horrible memoir on one hand, and on the other hand she will be fully aware of the nature of sexual assault when she reaches sexual maturity. There is no doubt that the victim's curiosity to the case will be aroused when she experiences puberty. At this stage, the hard memoir will convert to a driving force of the curiosity. She wants to know to what she has been the victim!
Such victims ask to be sexual touched or request for sex from an adult usually at the early ages (11 or 12). In this way, they experience their first actual intercourse with their request and at early age. Although the mentioned intercourse is not consensual because the child has no capacity for a sexual intercourse even with her own request. The consequences of this sexual relation are clear:
Does the adult man who have sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old girl (illegally) care about her mental and physical status?!
While her peers have not yet experienced any kind of such a relationship. This causes her to be secluded from them and subsequently has unrestrained interactions and relations with adults.
Showing posts with label Children Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Children Rights. Show all posts
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Friday, February 21, 2014
Father and Mother are the Rights of the Child
Today is our share and tomorrow is for today's children. I don't say that children are the heroes of tomorrow so look after them because they might have a different decision for the world. We want to give children, their rights and don't want to judge about future because the goodness and the badness of what doesn't belong to us, isn't ours, and the difficulty and the easiness of what doesn't belong to us, isn't ours.
Are the children that find themselves in the orphanages or the children who don't know who their parents were, the consequences of tsunami, earthquake or war?
No, none of it is true. In fact they're the consequences of the fathers that were forced to mature by the laws of nature. They're the consequences of the mothers who might bravely defend their interests but easily forget the rights of the child they bear in their womb.
Paragraph 1 article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states:
States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.
The lack of the presence of the law that is the fulfiller of the word "ensure" is felt. I forgot to mention that the congress didn't even pass this convention!
Paragraph (D) article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women states:
The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount.
In both of these conventions the term "responsibility" has been used. The question is: what's ensuring of performing this responsibility?!
Proper laws are passed for people escaping from paying taxes, but are there any similar rules passed for people escaping from the responsibility of parental responsibility?!
Are the children that find themselves in the orphanages or the children who don't know who their parents were, the consequences of tsunami, earthquake or war?
No, none of it is true. In fact they're the consequences of the fathers that were forced to mature by the laws of nature. They're the consequences of the mothers who might bravely defend their interests but easily forget the rights of the child they bear in their womb.
Paragraph 1 article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states:
States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.
The lack of the presence of the law that is the fulfiller of the word "ensure" is felt. I forgot to mention that the congress didn't even pass this convention!
Paragraph (D) article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women states:
The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount.
In both of these conventions the term "responsibility" has been used. The question is: what's ensuring of performing this responsibility?!
Proper laws are passed for people escaping from paying taxes, but are there any similar rules passed for people escaping from the responsibility of parental responsibility?!
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Children's Rights and Sex Industry
No one is forced to accept all of his/her rights. Nobody can be forced to defend his/her violated rights, but renunciation of rights is only allowed to the extent, that it's not against public order and the rights of others.
Article 6 of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women states:
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.
Interpretation: The term "all forms of" was used in the above article. Thus, this means that this article includes all the forms, whose natures are based upon trafficking in women (sex industry).
But surely the purpose of founding this convention as it's clear from its title is to eliminate discriminations against women, and this article is written to defend the rights of women. Therefore, since women's rights are of the rights of adult person, then they have the freedom to acceptance or renunciation of their rights.
Regarding children's rights, an article similar to this has been written over the rights of children which are attended by Convention of the Rights of the Child in article 34:
States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:
(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
(c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.
The important point is, due to the low age of children, the fundamental responsibility of defending their rights, is on the shoulders of the society (the government, court, adopters etc.).Thus a child cannot renounce most of his/her rights. For example, a child cannot enter the pornography on his/her own will. In such cases, his/her will is invalid.
Considering that paragraph 1 article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following regarding the responsibilities of the parents or the keepers of the child:
States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
And article 21 of this same convention states the following on adoption:
States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration…
And also paragraph (B), article 5 of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women states:
To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.
And paragraph (D), article 16 of this same convention which respectively states:
The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount.
And also paragraph (F) of that same article states:
The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount.
We conclude that the interests and the rights of the child in all cases, including the cases with conflicts between the interests of the child and the rights of the parents, have priority.
Considering the above issues, we return to article 34 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The key point in this article is that, the convention used the term "prevent" for defending the rights of the child in this subject. Prevent means, preventative protection. Preventative protection is on the opposite side of therapeutic protection. Article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, is an example of therapeutic protection which states:
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.
The interests of the child have priorities in all cases, then isn't giving a child to a mother or a father that are active in the sex industry, against the preventative protection which is included in article 34 of this convention?!
In other hand, plurality of intercourse infects many active individuals in the sex industry, with the HIV virus. The important point in this disease is long incubation period. It may take between 2 and 3 weeks to years while test show nothing of infection in infected body meanwhile HIV-positive person is infectious during this period of time.
Which one has priority in the contrast between the freedom of sex industry and the risk of infection with HIV for children by the infected mothers?!
Article 6 of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women states:
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.
Interpretation: The term "all forms of" was used in the above article. Thus, this means that this article includes all the forms, whose natures are based upon trafficking in women (sex industry).
But surely the purpose of founding this convention as it's clear from its title is to eliminate discriminations against women, and this article is written to defend the rights of women. Therefore, since women's rights are of the rights of adult person, then they have the freedom to acceptance or renunciation of their rights.
Regarding children's rights, an article similar to this has been written over the rights of children which are attended by Convention of the Rights of the Child in article 34:
States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:
(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
(c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.
The important point is, due to the low age of children, the fundamental responsibility of defending their rights, is on the shoulders of the society (the government, court, adopters etc.).Thus a child cannot renounce most of his/her rights. For example, a child cannot enter the pornography on his/her own will. In such cases, his/her will is invalid.
Considering that paragraph 1 article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following regarding the responsibilities of the parents or the keepers of the child:
States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
And article 21 of this same convention states the following on adoption:
States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration…
And also paragraph (B), article 5 of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women states:
To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.
And paragraph (D), article 16 of this same convention which respectively states:
The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount.
And also paragraph (F) of that same article states:
The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount.
We conclude that the interests and the rights of the child in all cases, including the cases with conflicts between the interests of the child and the rights of the parents, have priority.
Considering the above issues, we return to article 34 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The key point in this article is that, the convention used the term "prevent" for defending the rights of the child in this subject. Prevent means, preventative protection. Preventative protection is on the opposite side of therapeutic protection. Article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, is an example of therapeutic protection which states:
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.
The interests of the child have priorities in all cases, then isn't giving a child to a mother or a father that are active in the sex industry, against the preventative protection which is included in article 34 of this convention?!
In other hand, plurality of intercourse infects many active individuals in the sex industry, with the HIV virus. The important point in this disease is long incubation period. It may take between 2 and 3 weeks to years while test show nothing of infection in infected body meanwhile HIV-positive person is infectious during this period of time.
Which one has priority in the contrast between the freedom of sex industry and the risk of infection with HIV for children by the infected mothers?!
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Adoption: Right or Duty?
As long as this question remains unanswered, the purpose of adoption institution will also not be unfolded. The question is that, whether adoption is the right, or the duty of the society?
Paragraph 2 article 5 of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women answers this ambiguity:
To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.
Key points: the role of maternity is a social function. Up-bringing of the child is a co-responsibility of man and woman (and not necessarily father and mother). The benefits of the child (and not only his/her rights) have priority in all cases.
Article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following on adoption:
States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration...
Key point: priority of children's best interests, in line with implementing this institution.
The highly important point in these conventions is that, the term "interests" was used instead of "rights" to children's advantage. But what's the difference between interests, and rights?
I address this difference by providing an instance. According to the universal declaration of Human Rights, having a standard life is your right, but if the status of your life is better than that standard, then that becomes your interest.
When it's stated that child's interests have priority in all cases, then that means, if the court has to choose between one of the two options, and one option is society's rights while the other is child's interests, then the chosen option, has to be the child's interests.
It's clear that the purpose is to defend the interests of the children, thus just as the role of maternity is recognized as a social function to protect the interests of the child; adoption is also considered a social function.
It may be claimed that adoption is both a duty and a right just as the role of maternity is both a duty and a right.
Paragraph 1 article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following:
States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.
Key points: the interests of the child precede the parental rights of the parents. The guarantee from the membered states is that, the children will not be separated from their parents, despite their own will.
There are two cases in which the child is separated from his/her family: Juridical compulsion for protecting his/her rights and the other one is personal will. Thus, the role of maternity is a social function and the principal right is under the dominance of the two individuals: the child and the court.
So, the institution of adoption is a social function for protecting the interests of the children.
Adoption can be called substitution of the child. That means, a child that has no parents and is socially (and not naturally) no body's child, takes the place of a substituted child by being adopted into a family. And his/her keepers will become substituted parents and will have duties same as the duties of the real parents.
Is a gay couple, eligible to have the capacity of adoption?
-No
Why?
Paragraph 2 article 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women has declared the up-bringing of the child, the co-responsibility of woman and man. The key point is that the responsibility of the child's upbringing should be given to a family consisting of a man and a woman, when the child has no parents, or doesn't have a father or a mother.
Also, since the child suffers from the lack of parents and since the purpose of the institution of adoption is to protect the interests of the child and to fill the gaps in his/her life, so the family that adopts the child should be the gap-filler of the lack of parents. That means they should provide the affection and spiritual needs of the child. Otherwise, the orphanages can shelter and protect the children.
It should be noted that adoption, is actually the substitution of the child. This title of child's substitution is achieved, when that family is naturally able to breed. Is a group (or a family) consisting of two women or two men, naturally able to breed?!
Is a child that is adopted into such a group able to take the place of a substituted child?!
Paragraph 2 article 5 of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women answers this ambiguity:
To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.
Key points: the role of maternity is a social function. Up-bringing of the child is a co-responsibility of man and woman (and not necessarily father and mother). The benefits of the child (and not only his/her rights) have priority in all cases.
Article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following on adoption:
States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration...
Key point: priority of children's best interests, in line with implementing this institution.
The highly important point in these conventions is that, the term "interests" was used instead of "rights" to children's advantage. But what's the difference between interests, and rights?
I address this difference by providing an instance. According to the universal declaration of Human Rights, having a standard life is your right, but if the status of your life is better than that standard, then that becomes your interest.
When it's stated that child's interests have priority in all cases, then that means, if the court has to choose between one of the two options, and one option is society's rights while the other is child's interests, then the chosen option, has to be the child's interests.
It's clear that the purpose is to defend the interests of the children, thus just as the role of maternity is recognized as a social function to protect the interests of the child; adoption is also considered a social function.
It may be claimed that adoption is both a duty and a right just as the role of maternity is both a duty and a right.
Paragraph 1 article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following:
States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.
Key points: the interests of the child precede the parental rights of the parents. The guarantee from the membered states is that, the children will not be separated from their parents, despite their own will.
There are two cases in which the child is separated from his/her family: Juridical compulsion for protecting his/her rights and the other one is personal will. Thus, the role of maternity is a social function and the principal right is under the dominance of the two individuals: the child and the court.
So, the institution of adoption is a social function for protecting the interests of the children.
Adoption can be called substitution of the child. That means, a child that has no parents and is socially (and not naturally) no body's child, takes the place of a substituted child by being adopted into a family. And his/her keepers will become substituted parents and will have duties same as the duties of the real parents.
Is a gay couple, eligible to have the capacity of adoption?
-No
Why?
Paragraph 2 article 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women has declared the up-bringing of the child, the co-responsibility of woman and man. The key point is that the responsibility of the child's upbringing should be given to a family consisting of a man and a woman, when the child has no parents, or doesn't have a father or a mother.
Also, since the child suffers from the lack of parents and since the purpose of the institution of adoption is to protect the interests of the child and to fill the gaps in his/her life, so the family that adopts the child should be the gap-filler of the lack of parents. That means they should provide the affection and spiritual needs of the child. Otherwise, the orphanages can shelter and protect the children.
It should be noted that adoption, is actually the substitution of the child. This title of child's substitution is achieved, when that family is naturally able to breed. Is a group (or a family) consisting of two women or two men, naturally able to breed?!
Is a child that is adopted into such a group able to take the place of a substituted child?!
Thursday, February 13, 2014
The Seven Year Old Child Has No Representative!
There is always a Martin Luther King or a Malcolm X to be found, who will defend the rights of the blacks, because they were from this social class. There's always a Simone de Beauvoir or an Inessa Armand to be found, who will defend women's rights, because they themselves were women. There are always workpeople to be found who will defend their own rights. But who will defend the rights of children?
Is it expected that a seven year old child becomes the representative of children's rights?!
The Congress doesn't speak on behalf of children because children don't have the right to vote. The congress defends the rights and benefits of those who vote and pay taxes. We vote on instead of children, we make decisions instead of them.
So, aren't we responsible?
Homosexuals defend the recognition of marriage right for their own class. Also, they defend the recognition of their capacity to gain, adoption right. Some think, that this request of gays comes from human rights.
Article 16 of the universal declaration of Human Rights states the following on marriage:
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Interpretation: making a family is the right of every man and woman. Definition of family according to paragraph 3 of this article: “Family is the natural and fundamental group unit of the society.”
What does "fundamental group" mean?
That means a group which creates a generation.
Can a group of two men, or two women, be a generation creator?!
No, it can't. Then article 16 of this declaration has only recognized the creation of family and marriage, only in the limit of a relationship between a woman and a man.
But article 25 of this declaration strictly states the following on standard of living:
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
So, is giving an orphan child, to two men or two women, in alignment with the accepted standard of society?!
Have you ever encountered a child who lives with a group consisting of two men or two women?!
Human rights, never opposes Human Rights. If in a society, Human rights destroy the rights of children then definitely as Hannah Arendt had said, "Social Totalitarianism" becomes dominant.
Is it expected that a seven year old child becomes the representative of children's rights?!
The Congress doesn't speak on behalf of children because children don't have the right to vote. The congress defends the rights and benefits of those who vote and pay taxes. We vote on instead of children, we make decisions instead of them.
So, aren't we responsible?
Homosexuals defend the recognition of marriage right for their own class. Also, they defend the recognition of their capacity to gain, adoption right. Some think, that this request of gays comes from human rights.
Article 16 of the universal declaration of Human Rights states the following on marriage:
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Interpretation: making a family is the right of every man and woman. Definition of family according to paragraph 3 of this article: “Family is the natural and fundamental group unit of the society.”
What does "fundamental group" mean?
That means a group which creates a generation.
Can a group of two men, or two women, be a generation creator?!
No, it can't. Then article 16 of this declaration has only recognized the creation of family and marriage, only in the limit of a relationship between a woman and a man.
But article 25 of this declaration strictly states the following on standard of living:
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
So, is giving an orphan child, to two men or two women, in alignment with the accepted standard of society?!
Have you ever encountered a child who lives with a group consisting of two men or two women?!
Human rights, never opposes Human Rights. If in a society, Human rights destroy the rights of children then definitely as Hannah Arendt had said, "Social Totalitarianism" becomes dominant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)