Verne Strickland / Blogmaster / October 28, 2013
Archibishop Francis Chullikat gets tough on children's issues
Peter Smith, of SPUC - a prolife group of the United Kingdom - and the International Right to Life Federation, praised a speech given by Archbishop Francis Chullikat at the United Nations. Archbishop Chullikat is
the Permanent Observer of the Vatican at the UN, a powerful voice for
human rights. In his speech, the Vatican diplomat made a plea to the
world's conscience as the the international body deliberated on the
protection of children throughout the world. In addition, he took a
swipe at the the committee that has jurisidction
over children's issues. Smith said, "This speech was very pro-life and
pro-family and took a swipe at the crooked compliance committee that
oversees the Convention on the rights of the child.”
The text of the speech follows:
Intervention of Archbishop Francis Chullikatt
Apostolic Nuncio, Permanent Observer of The Holy See to The UN
Third Committee of the 68th General Assembly
Item 65: Promotion and Protection of The Rights of Children
Mr Chairman:
This year’s Secretary General’s Report on the Status of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child (A/68/257) helpfully draws attention to child
mortality, which goes to the heart of what the Convention in article 6
enshrines as the child’s “right to life, survival and development”.
Indeed, without life, all other rights are meaningless. It is a cause
for encouragement that his Report concludes that the goal of ending all
preventable child deaths is now within our reach.[1]
Among the key factors for achieving this goal the Report identifies
maternal health.[2] This is confirmed by the logic of the Convention
itself, which affords the child the right to both pre-natal and
post-natal healthcare (article 24(d)). This provision has meaning only
if the unborn baby is first afforded the right to life and survival.
This accords with my Delegation’s understanding of the Convention’s
definition of the term “child”, which article 1 addresses with an
explicit terminus ad quem of 18 years and a terminus a quo implicit in the preamble’s clear reference to the child’s rights “before and after birth”.
It follows that each child must be accorded in the first place the
right to be born. This is a right, moreover, which must be protected
equally – without discrimination on any grounds, including those of sex
or disability or policies dictated by eugenics. Thus, pre-natal
diagnosis undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether or not the baby
will be permitted to be born is inconsistent with the Convention, which
my Delegation regards as the fundamental normative instrument on the
rights of the child. The unborn baby is a member of our human family and
does not belong to a “sub-category of human beings”.
Mr Chairman:
My Delegation takes a holistic view of both health and education,
identified by this year’s Secretary General’s Report as fundamental to
the State’s obligations. As the Secretary General acknowledged in his
previous year’s Report (A/67/225, paragraph 41): health “extends beyond
the physical and mental well-being of an individual to the spiritual
balance and well-being of the community as a whole”. This includes the
duty to take concrete steps to support parents in their proper role of
raising their children, so that, as the Declaration of the Rights of the
Child asserts, each child may be given “opportunities and facilities,
by law and by other means, to enable him [or her] to develop physically,
mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal
manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity.”
Mr Chairman:
My Delegation concurs with the Report of the Special Rapporteur
on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography
(A/68/275), that prevention is a key aspect for the protection of
children from sale and sexual exploitation. In this regard, the Report
devotes significant attention to the indispensable role of the family
for the protection of children. Indeed, “The family represents the
first layer of a protective environment”.[3] Parents, in the first
instance, have the responsibility to secure the conditions of living,
necessary for the child’s life, survival and development.[4]
States have the duty to protect, support and strengthen the family for
the best interests of the child. This is all the more important – as
the Report observes — given that poverty, unemployment, disease,
disability and difficulty in accessing social services as a result of
discrimination and exclusion may affect the ability of parents to care
for their children; and that mental or behavioural disorders, conflicts,
substance addiction and domestic violence may weaken the ability of
families to provide a harmonious and safe environment and make children
more likely to engage in risky behaviours.[5]
Mr Chairman:
While protection of the rights of children begins with full respect for
children themselves at all stages in their development, from conception
onwards, parents, for their part, possess an indispensable role in
their formation and education, and the family is the proper place for
their development, as the Secretary General’s Report acknowledges.[6]
Defense of the rights of the child requires, as its necessary corollary,
defense of the family, for which the societal benefits are obvious: it
is the family, not the State, that houses our children, feeds them,
instructs them, and raises the next generation of society.
When it comes to the upbringing and education of children, therefore,
the provisions of the Convention cannot disregard the specific rights
and responsibilities of parents. The Convention perfectly reflects the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in its preamble privileges
parents’ “prior right” (article 26.3) in the education of their
children – which is to say, a right prior to that of the State or other
actors – especially in the important arena of religious liberty which
includes human sexuality, marriage and the statute of the family.
With specific regard to “physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social
development” (article 27, CRC), the Convention (article 18.1) similarly
privileges parents with the “primary responsibility” for their
children’s upbringing. These rights and responsibilities of parents in
international law are the bulwark of their fundamental right to freedom
of religion (art. 14, CRC) in regard to which parents are entirely
entitled to choose schools “other than those established by the public
authorities, [inclusive of home schooling], which conform to such
minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the
State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their child []
in conformity with their own convictions” (art.13.3, ICESCR).
Mr Chairman:
In light of the recent output of the Committee on the Rights of the
Child, my Delegation would like to address some elements of General
Comments 14 and 15. These Comments, my Delegation must point out
respectfully, represent only the opinions of the Committee; they do not
constitute agreed language and lack all force of judicial precedence.
Whatever is contained within them that is not consistent with the
normative text of the Convention and other international instruments
constitutes a disservice to the best interests of children. Expressions
such as “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” (General Comment No.
14 [2013], par. 55, and No. 15 [2013], par. 8)), on which no
international juridical consensus exists, are used spuriously and very
unfortunately in these Comments. The recommendations, for example,
States submit children to education and direction on sexual health,
contraception and so-called “safe” abortion (par. 31) without the
consent of their parents, caregiver or guardian; abortion be promoted by
States as a family planning method (par. 54, 56, 70), and so-called
“sexual and reproductive health information or services” be provided by
States, irrespective of providers’ conscientious objections (par. 69).
Such recommendations are particularly reprehensible. No abortion is ever
“safe” because it kills the life of the child and harms the mother.
The Holy See strongly urges the Committee to revise its General
Comments in conformity with its guiding international instruments:
beginning with the Convention itself, which affirms the right to life of
the child, “before as well as after birth” (Preamble, par. 9), the
right of conscience[7], and full respect for the rights,
responsibilities and duties of parents regarding their children[8]; and
including also the explicit affirmation by the International Conference
on Population and Development (ICPD) that abortion should never be
promoted as a family planning method (par. 7.24).
Mr Chairman:
My delegation calls upon the international community to uphold the
clear principles of one of the most ratified Convention’s in
international law, so that they will do their part in promoting openness
to the gift and richness of life which the child represents, and thus
foster the common good of all persons, the attainment of which remains
“the sole reason for the existence of civil authorities”[9].
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
[1] ad para. 68 a.
[2] ad para. 57.
[3] ad para. 36
[4] cf. articles 6 and 27 of CRC
[5] ad para. 37
[6] ad para. 61.
[7] CRC, Article 14; cf. also UDHR, Article 18 and ICCPR, Article 18
[8] CRC, Articles, 3, 5, 7, 9, 14, 18, 27, and 29, c; cf. also UDHR, Article 26,3 and ICCPR Article 18,3
[9] John XXIIII, Encyclical Pacem in terris, 54
Governments
have been confiscating citizens’ savings for decades through deficits,
inflation and outright theft, and it's about to get worse. Bankrupt
governments will do whatever is necessary to survive and feed the
welfare state, and they have never been more bankrupt than they are
right now. Look no further than 
The
U.S. Debt, not including unfunded liabilities, is over $17 trillion
dollars. The sociopaths who are driving the titanic will be