The Child's Rights - A Discussion

Practical Applications and Implications of Child Rights

Child rights are extremely important, valuable, and have changed the world in many ways. However, in this section, I would like to encourage us to think about them a bit more in depth. Particularly, concerning their practical application and social implications. While I do not claim to have all the knowledge or answers on this topic, having the starting point for further inquiry is a good place for us to land. I encourage you to think about what you think about child rights and your experience of them.

Social context

Like our previous piece on the evolution of childhood, I’ve emphasised western rights because they are the dominant ones in our world. However, it is important to know that the UN, who designed modern child rights, acknowledges that if a country has laws about children which serve them better than the global ones without violating global human and child rights, those rights should still be respected and upheld. So modern rights are, in theory, not meant to trump any other, traditional rights that benefit the child.

It is important for us to note at this stage that there will always be a huge difference between the theoretical (written down and conceptualised) law and practical application and experience, whether we're discussing rights or anything else. There are always social realities to confront and the reality still exists that many children are robbed of their rights today and enforcing those rights, especially in places with social conflict, oppressive governments, and war is extremely difficult. Laws are not nearly as black and white as they may seem. Even though the rights do hope to place all children on the same level, the reality exists that things like poverty, social status, and exploitation can block children from experiencing the full reality of their rights and childhood. We have done a lot to place children on the same footing, but there will always be differences. Additionally, beyond western-influenced societies, values and rights of childhood may take a different form to how they are conceptualised in western society. It is important to note that not everyone values rights according to western ideals, but that it is not always a negative thing and often based on a society's needs, though still protective.

Questions and conflicts

It is in the discussion of the child’s rights that we see issues of childhood become more contested than ever. The child’s rights have brought up many questions and conflicts, particularly around matters like autonomy, agency, capacity for decisive thought, social morals and values, parenting, and discipline. Some areas have become more grey and there has not been much room for discussion and understanding between caregivers, lawmakers, and practitioners.

A key question which often causes conflict is who determines exactly what the best interests of the child are? Yes, there are the commonly accepted ones of their physical and psychological protection and wellbeing, of which I am a huge advocate, but what about the ones that may be less agreed upon? Like what the child should believe, learn and do? Uncomfortable as it is, we need to consider this because this is where a clash often comes in. Yes, the rights theoretically give room to multiple beliefs and opinions, but practically, certain beliefs get pushed over others. Yes, there are toxic social structures and families that often become abusive toward children and which should in many ways be trumped over and punished. Other times, when it raises questions of children’s rights to choose identities, religions, make legal decisions, give consent, and other matters, we have seen many examples that nothing is ever so clear cut, and there are multiple arguments to be made.

Additionally, these rights bring up more questions and conversations around children’s agency and capacity for decisive thought. The CRC mentions making room for parental guidance, but again we see that, in practice, it is not often so. This makes me consider how parenting has changed against this backdrop. We now know that the child’s rights emerged from the idea that childhood is meant to be innocent and happy, which families have the responsibility to protect. We also know that education is important in training and raising them up. Where once the family and parents were entrusted with the upbringing of their children, and teaching them values, we seem to be seeing more of the state and society having a louder say in the child’s upbringing than the family, particularly under the guise of protecting the child or giving them the chance to fully experience or express themselves in life. This is often done through education and media.

I want to emphasise that I in no way advocate for abusive or restrictive beliefs and behaviours. I am speaking about valid beliefs which go against the social norm but have relevance. While much of the rights are things I very much agree with, we cannot ignore that there has been a bit of a tipped balance and the innocence of childhood has somehow become violated through increased opportunity and less parental say (such as the information children have access to and education). How do we find the balance? Is it with more rules and rights, or more parental freedom?

While much of the consequences of children’s rights have been wonderful, some of these laws have been interpreted or pushed in ways which may ultimately prove detrimental to child wellbeing in the long run. For example, laws surrounding education, information, and free thought. Despite children having more laws and freedoms than ever, those freedoms often do not come with the correct guidance. We are seeing children having near unrestricted access to things which they should not or being encouraged and educated in beliefs and practices which their families and values do not support, but have little say in preventing. Children, having more access than ever before, are being exposed to content and lifestyles that they otherwise would have been very shielded from until their brains were ready. We have seen ages of sexual consent get lower, high stress level and adult behaviour.

Things have become greyer whereas clear rights were supposed to make them more black and white. The question then becomes, where is the problem? Who dropped the ball? And what must be done to rectify it? Has the enforcement of children’s rights had a part to play in this? This is an extremely complex topic and I don’t have the answers, but this conversation does need to happen between the academic and social spaces.

These questions need to be confronted in detail rather than just telling caregivers what they must and must not do, and threatening them with punishment, because that can cause resentment to develop, or just cause a fear of the law, not a true change of heart. Often community members may not understand why certain rights exist or certain rights may fundamentally go against their beliefs, and, despite their desires, they are subject to them. This causes more resistance, tension, and resentment. The problem here is that it ultimately does not benefit the children because then communities are less willing to embrace interventions for children and more things get hidden from the law. Therefore, these conflicts and respecting the voices of communities need to be addressed before we can do anything for the child. Thankfully, more organisations are seeing the value of being in non-judgemental conversations with communities and caregivers to truly educate them and understand where they come from. This is something Ntsakoblog also hopes to do.

Agendas

One writer stated that, in the past, the “transmission of social norms was a family matter” (unknown), and rights, like any other laws, carry with them a transmission of social norms and ideologies. This means that these laws are not extremely objective no matter how much we wish them to be. In some way or other, they are meant to promote desired behaviours or social norms and find a way to enforce them. Remember that every law serves someone’s agenda. While this is not an invitation to conspiracy, it is an invitation to not take everything at face value and to really think about and understand children’s laws. We seem to be seeing an increase laws and values melting together, and there being a slight more promotion of laws based on social values rather than objective proofs. This makes me wonder about the future of child laws and rights.

As we saw in our previous blog piece, social constructs are constantly changing and because they are socially constructed, they are able to be adapted to dominant ideologies or social progress. What I mean is that much of what is spoken of in the rights of the child is based on social constructs which we have seen change over the years, the same way we saw that childhood has changed over the years. Some of these constructs, for example, are morals, purpose, and identity. While in their most innocent form laws appear to benefit people, they can, as all things made by man do, be perverted to suit the agendas and wills of people, even if it is not so obvious at first. When something is designed off of a social construct, its meaning has the capacity to change, become more fluid, or be misinterpreted and misused in a way that no longer benefits down the line. We must be careful of this.

Takeaway

I applaud the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) for how it does not completely take away the rights of the caregivers and still provides some room for their own agency, requiring States to respect the parent’s right to parent, with the best interests of the child in mind, of course. The Convention also acknowledges that the child’s capacities are always developing and evolving. So, their capacity for thought and decision-making is always evolving. So is our knowledge and understanding of development.

Children’s rights in practise are not nearly as clear-cut, nor objective and easy to understand or appreciate as they may seem on the surface. While a lot of good has come out of the CRC, we can still do better at being more sensitive in their practical application. Despite the best intentions of policymakers, rights can always be perverted to suit someone else’s desires and can never be kept truly objective. It is best not to pretend that they can remain objective.

In many ways, I find children’s rights extremely important and beautiful. In many ways they help children to develop safely by protecting them and encouraging adults to allow them to fully embrace childhood. While I do not believe the conceptualisation of child rights and how they are upheld is nearly that harmless, it is one aspect we need to appreciate and continue to work toward better understanding.

Read Part 1 here.

Share your Comments Below!

Please feel free to reach out with any comments, questions, and child-related stories