My next thought was – oh that would be a BAD idea. Do I really want my child coming back at me with legal arguments for why I can’t send her to bed without supper? Or to have her argue that she has the right to practice her own language and culture, even if that language is whining?
The convention is fantastic, of course. According to UNICEF, “The four core principles of the Convention are non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child.” Those are beautiful principles!
So why did I recoil at the idea of letting Isadora in on those rights? Is it just that she’s too little to understand them? Or is it, more disturbingly, that I want to reserve the right to dole out those principles at my own whims?
In reality I think it’s neither. I think that she would be quite right to argue that it’s cruel to send her to bed hungry, and I shouldn’t (and don’t plan to) ever do that. I think that I’m quite capable of a solid counter-argument to the whining-as-a-cultural-prerogative idea. It’s just that I think we’re not used to thinking of children in this light, as fully realized, rights-bearing individuals. Shifting our perceptions of children to something other than either property or extensions of ourselves is, frankly, kind of exhausting. And so incredibly important, for parents and teachers and anyone involved in children’s lives. Especially article 31:
“1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.
2. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.”
Or in the child-friendly version: You have the right to play and to rest.
Given all we’ve learned about how imperative play is to a child’s ability to learn, this convention essentially is what will provide the world with the next generation of thoughtful, creative adults.
So I’ve decided that when Isadora can read, I will get a poster of the convention for her room. Her constitutional-law-specialist father will surely approve! And I’ll just have to make sure I memorize and take it to heart as thoroughly as she inevitably will.
Chief Justice Isadora gives her reasons:
Works cited:
United Nations (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved on August 5, 2011, available at: http://www.unicef.org/crc/.
United Nations (1989). Convention on the rights of the child in child friendly language. Retrieved on August 5, 2011, available at:
http://www.unicef.org/rightsite/files/uncrcchilldfriendlylanguage.pdf
I enjoyed reading this... thanks for sharing! I think that your little one has a strong sense of her place in the world, and allowed much self-expression... isn't it interesting to find that even when we're committed to that as parents/teachers, it's still a right that we feel more comfortable 'extending'....
ReplyDeleteWhat are the implications for 'other people's children'? In a Canadian context, we conceptualize children as their parents' responsibility... and, meanwhile, child poverty rates are consistently high - http://www.campaign2000.ca/
We would advocate for all children, the elements of freedom and self-expression that is such a fundamental part of Isadora's world...
Oh the Un declaration on the right of the child. What I find sad regarding the UN declarations is that they are non-binding to memeber nations and are not valid pieces of legsislation.
ReplyDeleteThey have a declaration on the rights of Indigenous nations as well, but Canada was one of three countriess which refused to sign.
So my thought is: why create a declaration which is relatively meaningless in the greater scheme of things? Or is that the idea is somehow more important then the reality?
either way, nice post.
-g