Connecticut Judge Charles Gill Thinks People Should Be Forced To Get A License To Have Children

Charles Gill, former Litchfield District Superior Court Judge

There are people in high positions of power, in the United States, that believe people should be forced to become "licensed" before they are allowed to have children.  One of these people is former judge for the Litchfield District Superior Court in Connecticut, Charles D. Gill.  Judge Gill wrote the foreword to a book called Licensing Parents, and says that this was the book that convinced him that parents should be licensed.  For an in-depth analysis on the extraordinary details and suggestions propagated in Licensing Parents, read the report A Critical Examination of the Book and Concept of "Licensing Parents".

The influence of Charles Gill in Connecticut law and politics was briefly described in an analysis titled "Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special "Rights".  In the analysis it was discussed how Judge Gill was attempting to make United States law consistent with United Nations resolutions, more specifically The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).  The UNCRC would drastically reduce the rights of parents over their children, by increasing government involvement into the lives of children, in the name of "protecting" them.  Judge Gill has been quoted as admitting that the UNCRC makes the state directly responsible for the child:

"The (UN) convention makes a total break from previous approaches to children's rights. Previous 'rights' were paternalistic, whereas the convention makes the state directly responsible to the child."

Gill wrote an article for the The School Superintendents Association (AASA) where he promoted the UNCRC, as well as discussing, among other things, a trip he took in 1972 to the Soviet Union as part of a "special education tour" with American and Soviet educators.  In the article Gill shows admiration for the way the Soviet Union viewed children as "national treasures", and bemoans his belief that Americans don't share the same view of their children.  Gill also displays an, in my opinion, radical view of the purpose of "public school leaders", suggesting that they should put "dangerous" knowledge into the minds of children to effect political change:

"Because of your experience, position, and leadership, you have the capacity to become "armed and dangerous" on behalf of our national treasure—our children. You are "armed" with knowledge and "dangerous" because you can put that knowledge to work in the political arena."

One excerpt from the article seemingly shows Gill's true feelings towards the parent/child relationship, implying that parents are detrimental in the development of children.  Writing about the need to "develop children", Gill says:

"An outstanding elementary school principal from Butte, Mont., Kate Stetzner, makes the point with perhaps more clarity. She subscribes to something she calls "the bathtub theory." Children come to school each day as empty bathtubs. Caring teachers and administrators dutifully fill that tub with nurturing, values, inspiration, and information, then the children go home ... and somebody pulls out the plug."

Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special "Rights"

The United Nations wants to give your children "rights".  You may think your child already has "rights", but the kind of "rights" that the UN wants to legally provide children are the kind that would bring a government agent to your house if you decide to home school your children, bring them to a religious function, or even punish them.  This agent would decide if your actions are, or were, appropriate, and in line with the child's "rights".

The plan to give all of the children of the world the same "rights", is known as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, or CRC).  It is important to understand that this plan is actually part of a much larger United Nations plan called "Agenda 21."  I have previously written on Agenda 21, and found the document to be a plan by the United Nations to gain more decision making power, or sovereignty, from countries, and create a world in which every resource, water, animals, food, etc., even human resources, and population size, is tracked, and controlled, by a group of non-elected bureaucrats at the UN, working in conjunction with big corporations, and non-governmental organizations (NGO's).  In Article 25, Section 14 of Agenda 21, governments are required to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In this analysis, I will detail a brief history of "child rights", explore the actual text of this document, the effect this convention has had on countries that have ratified it, and trace its attempted ratification in the United States, down to our own Connecticut state legislature.

History of the CRC

Decades before the UN held a convention on the rights of the child, there were various declarations made, in regards to giving children special rights, even dating back as far as 1924, adopted by the predecessor of the United Nations, the League of Nations.  In 1989, The UN General Assembly adopted the Convention and opened it for signature.  It came into force in 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations.

In the United States, under the administration of Bill Clinton, the CRC was signed, but the treaty was never submitted for Senate approval, due to opposition from some members of the Senate.  More recently, in 2009, the Obama administration revived efforts to have the United States sign onto the CRC, according to former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.  The following year, thirty-one Republican senators cosponsored a resolution opposing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  The United States is only one of a few countries yet to ratify the treaty.

Important to note, potential future Presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong supporter of the treaty.

In Their Own Words

Let us examine the actual text of the treaty.  This "Convention on the Rights of the Child" treaty is 15 pages, consisting of 54 Articles, detailing the assertion that children have special rights, and the ways to implement the bureaucracy that is needed to insure that governments are "protecting" these children's rights.

When dealing with the United Nations, as with any government organization, it is important to critically examine the grammar used, see past the happy, positive sounding rhetoric, and be able to understand the actual details of a plan.  The CRC opens with a preamble that emphasizes the importance of "the protection and harmonious development of the child".  Again, this sounds nice, but we must remember, this could mean anything, and is coming from an organization that calls their violent military army, "peace keeping" troops.