The UN's deconstruction of the family
By Prof. Jane Adolphe, President
Since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "the family" has been recognized as the "natural and fundamental group unit of society" (Art. 16.3). The same, or similar wording such as "the family is the basic unit of society," has been used in a plethora of other international documents.
Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically acknowledges "the prior right" of parents "to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children" in Art. 26.3. But this formerly solid UN support for the family has disintegrated in recent years. The extent of this erosion was evident last August, when an attempt by the Holy See delegation to add the terms "parents," "marriage" and "family" to the Lisbon Declaration on Youth Policies and Programmes was largely unsuccessful. As it stands, the Declaration, negotiated at the UN-sponsored First World Conference of Ministers Responsible for Youth, contains no reference whatsoever to parental rights or duties and only some ambiguous references to the family.
The birth of the 'autonomous child'
Why the UN retreat from internationally agreed-upon terminology recognizing parents and the family? Because the terminology is inconsistent with the novel international vision of the "autonomous child," which regards children not primarily as members of families, but rather as independent individuals who hold rights conferred and guaranteed by the State. Through its terminology of "youth rights," the Lisbon Declaration represents just one more building block in the UN program to radically transform theparent-child relationship, a program that was institutionalized in 1989 with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
In the Lisbon Declaration, the "autonomous child" philosophy is promoted through three main avenues: challenges to the traditional family, denials of parental rights, and promotion of premarital sex for children. It is incredible that an inclusion in the Lisbon Declaration's preamble asserting that "the family is the basic unit in society" was only a last-minute amendment, included over the protests of several European nations. Moreover, following the preamble, there is no mention of parental rights and other paragraphs in the Declaration reduce the family to just another "stakeholder" among many social groups with an interest in youth. For example, Art. 6 states that there must be a strengthening of responsible partnerships "among all key stakeholders especially youth networks, non-governmental organizations also including young women, particularly the girl-child, and young men, their families, governments, international agencies, educational institutions, civil society, the business sector and media." An acknowledgment in Art. 23 that "the family unit has a vital role to play" gives little comfort, as the expression "family unit" is not defined and deliberately departs from the internationally agreed-upon term "the family."
Use of the term "family structures" in Art. 45 doesn't improve matters, since both of the terms "family unit" and "family structure" may be interpreted to include non-traditional familial unions. For instance, in the 1992 UN document "Family: Challenges for the Future," homosexual unions are promoted as a "new form" of family life that has developed "to meet the challenges of the modern world."Such attempts to redefine the concept of "family" are frequently justified on the grounds of "tolerance." However, whatever happened to the distinction between tolerance and promotion? Surely, it is one thing for a State to tolerate non-traditional families, but quite another to promote them as State policy. Whatever happened to the concept of the "common good of society"? Surely, heterosexual families have always been primarily promoted by society because they are essential for the transmission of life and for society's continued existence.
Parental rights don't matter
Missing language with respect to the family is tied to missing language with respect to parental rights. The Lisbon Declaration's failure to give recognition to parental rights is especially alarming given that it may apply to children as young as 10, according to a variety of UN documents and statements presented at the Youth Minister's Conference. The situation is particularly aggravated by the Lisbon Declaration's promotion of health care information and services which relate to "sexually transmitted diseases" (Arts. 66, 68), and to "reproductive health care" and "family planning" (Art.73). In other words, by the interpretation of key UN agencies, 10-year-olds may receive information, counseling and services relating to contraception, sterilization and abortion.
Moreover, Western delegations, supported by a number of African nations, specifically rebuffed a bid by the Holy See to attach a reference acknowledging "parental responsibilities" to Art. 73, meaning that these 10-year-olds could receive this information, counseling and services without their parent's consent or knowledge. There is also support for the proposition that the Lisbon Declaration calls for an international right to abortion. Article 66 calls for the creation of "political, legal, material and social conditions that allow access to basic health care that pay particular attention to information and prevention programmes." The UN system defines "reproductive health care" as a fundamental component of "basic health care." According to Art. 7.2 of the Programme of Action of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, "reproductive health" includes "methods of regulation of fertility that are not against the law." The World Health Organization, in turn, has defined "fertility regulation" as including "interrupting unwanted pregnancies" - an obvious euphemism for abortion. In light of this definitional chain, it is clearly possible that "basic health care," as mandated by the Lisbon Declaration, may be interpreted to include the provision of abortion services to minor children.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child
How did we come to this point? A consideration of the CRC demonstrates that the Lisbon vision of the "child" or "short adult" is a natural extension of the "autonomous child" approach to children's rights. The CRC represents a marked departure in philosophy from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 1959 UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Both those documents unambiguously recognized the primary responsibility of parents in the education and development of their children. In contrast, notwithstanding certain references to "the family" and "parental rights," the CRC is rife with "autonomous child" language which undermines this prior right of the family and parents to the State.
The change in UN philosophy with respect to children did not go unnoticed. During the CRC's negotiation, the Holy See argued that the rights of the child were inseparable from the rights of the family. It acceded to the CRC but with three reservations, one of which was that the articles of the Convention should be interpreted in a way which "safeguards the primary and inalienable rights of parents." In this regard, the Holy See emphasized two main points. Firstly, under the CRC, parents were not adequately protected from State intervention and control. Secondly, children had been granted rights of privacy and freedom of religion and association, which due to the children's immaturity could permit them to act against their interests and those of the family.
State agencies will define what's best for kids
Both criticisms struck at the heart of the CRC's "autonomous child" approach. In effect, it mandates that children are "protected" from their parents by the State, thereby creating a relationship between government and children that is independent of the family. By invoking the "best interest standard" (Art. 3) and "evolving capacities standard" (Arts. 5, 8) the State can intervene and review the reasonableness of parental decisions. In other words, a child can petition the State and argue that parents have not exercised parental rights according to the child's best interests or according to the child's evolving capacities - criteria that are, in turn, defined by State agencies, not parents. As well, the employment of the> subjective standard of the "evolving capacities" of the child challenges the traditional age-based standards regarding the legal capacity of individuals to exercise rights and responsibilities.
The granting of rights such as religion, association, and privacy marks a departure from the view that children and society must be protected from children's temporary lack of capacity, since the exercise of such rights presupposes adult capacity. The change in philosophy is particularly grave, given the "sexual revolution" in adult society and the growing belief that sex is associated with the "core idea of autonomy." Consequently, reference to privacy rights for children implies support for their "sexual freedom." The term "privacy" could also be interpreted as including the right to means of contraception and abortion. This is not just mere speculation; privacy rights have already been recognized for children in the context of abortion and contraception in the United States.
Today, with the Lisbon Declaration, the grim reality is that further violence has been done to the principle that the family is the primary social institution and therefore parents have prior rights to those of the State with respect to their children. Parents and children are now independently considered. In other words, the family is promoted not as a natural society based on marriage between two consenting human beings of the opposite sex, but as a group of loosely bound interchangeable individuals. One of the primary roles of parents, in fact, seems to be that of supporting their child's quest for sexual autonomy through encouragement of the child's ongoing sexual activity.
In sum, that the Lisbon Declaration continues what the CRC began is not surprising. What is surprising is that States are actually "buying the package." But are the appropriate questions being asked? Has the appropriate consumer research been done? Surely such research must involve consideration of the following: On what basis has society concluded that the common good,> which includes the good of children, is advanced through the promotion of non-traditional, unstable, and separated family life rather than traditional, stable, and united family life? On what basis has society concluded that States can do a better job of parenting than parents? Or that "authentic autonomy" is limited to and synonymous with "sexual autonomy"? Or that premarital sex is morally, psychologically and physically good for children? At the very least, the general public has the right to ask these questions in the democratic process for the formation of domestic social policy.