ParentalRights.org » Blog

Should public libraries keep a child’s check-out history secret from his or her parents? The Wisconsin legislature is debating this question.

The Milwaukee Jounal Sentinel reports:

The measure would allow parents who request it to obtain records that document their children’s library use.

“We’re saying it’s a parental right,” said Rep. Sheryl Albers (R-Reedsburg), the author of the bill.

But Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids), who used Assembly procedural rules to block final approval of the bill, said he thought the measure was terrible public policy.

“It’s a major invasion of the right of privacy of children,” he said. “Children need to understand their rights are protected, and if government won’t protect their rights nobody will.”

The “right of privacy of children” from their parents? Are parents the enemies of children? Our government should be supporting the important relationship of the child and parent rather than undermining it. It is not possible to be an effective parent if you can not know what your child is doing.

This type of thing is happening everywhere from the local level to the federal court level. We’ve got to take a stand to protect the child-parent relationship. The essential question here is who should be making the decisions for your children on what materials they look at, the library or you as the parent?

Tell your friends to get involved by signing the Parental Rights Amendment petition.

The greatest threats to parental rights are coming from the federal courts and encroaching international law. Read on for more details.

This concept of privacy rights for children from their parents is found in international law and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Article 16 of the CRC says: “1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation. 2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

Kevin Mark Smith wrote in a law review article (emphasis is mine): 

Consider the express language of the CRC. With CRC ratification and subsequent passage of enabling legislation, a child will have the freedoms of expression (telling parents and teachers whatever opinions come to mind, no matter how offensive they may be), thought, conscience and religion (with the accompanying right to refuse to attend the church of their parent’s choice), association (with drug addicts, thieves, and social reprobates), and privacy (with the right to be free from searches of parents concerned about behaviors associated with drug abuse). Such freedoms are not compatible with most Americans’ preconceptions of proper childrearing. Before the U.N. granted the aforementioned “adult” rights to children in the CRC, it was an accepted reality of life in America that children are too immature to handle the tremendous responsibility adult “freedoms” carry with them. Consequently, under the American model, parents determine when children are mature enough to handle adult responsibilities. This serves to guide children through the chaotic years of childhood. Thus, parental guidance assures, in most cases, that children’s best interests are met. “The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: The Sacrifice of American Children o the Altar of Third-World Activism.” Washburn Law Journal (1998)

Regrettably, because of customary international law doctrine, the CRC does not need official ratification in order for it to be imposed on us by the courts.

We must get the the Parental Rights Amendment into the Constitution so there is no question in our nation that we support the child-parent relationship.