The Contract With the American
Family
or, the similarities between our Congress
and prostitutes.
The Contract With the American Family represents
one of the few times in our nation's history when the agenda of
Congress has been controlled by a religious organization. Without the
Christian Coalition's support, the Republican revolution that swept
Congress would very likely have not have been nearly so decisive. In
exchange for the election, the Republicans have committed themselves
to the passage of the Contract with the American Family. This
Contract has a couple of good ideas, but it also calls for heavy
Internet censorship, and the religious equality amendment. Its also
got some stuff against a UN intiative called the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child. Information on all of it is on this page, except
for REA, which merits its own
page. Parts in bold are contract text; the
rest is mine. The full text of the contract can be found here.
INTERNET CENSORSHIP:
1. Enactment of legislation to protect children
from being exposed to pornography on the Internet. Pornography, both
soft core and hard core, is freely available on the Internet to
virtually anyone with a home computer. Several magazines post
pornographic images that can be viewed by anyone, including children,
for free. There are also numerous sites on the Internet where hard
core pornography depicting a variety of explicit sexual acts, even
rape scenes and bestiality, are available free and can be accessed
with a few clicks of a computer button. Christian Coalition urges
Congress to enact legislation to protect children from being exposed
to pornography on the Internet. Criminal law should be amended to
prohibit distribution of, or making available, any pornography, soft
core or hard, to children, and to prohibit distribution of obscene
hard core pornography to adults.
There are already plenty of low-cost or free
software blocking programs that can block a child's access to
pornography. The industry has come up with many ways of regulating
itself, making such legislation unnecessary. The idea of prohibiting
the distribution of hard-core pornography that is made and
distributed by consenting adults is almost laughable in its
unconstitutionality.
UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD:
Christian Coalition opposes the treaty because
it interferes with the parent-child relationship, threatens the
sovereignty of U.S. law, and elevates as "rights" such dubious
provisions as access to television and mass media. The following are
some of the examples of the absolute rights given to children through
this treaty:
"No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or
unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or
correspondence - The child has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks."
"The child shall have the right to freedom of
expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,
either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through
any other media of the child's choice."
With respect to the right of the child to
freedom of association or peaceful assembly, "[n]o restrictions may
be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in
conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic
society in the interests of national security or public safety,
public order, the protection of public health or morals or the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
They don't like this one because they claim that
it will allow children to have access to any sort of media, including
media which is not age appropriate. However, if one reads the actual
text
of the treaty (the above are only the
examples the Christian Coalition uses to prove their point) one can
see that the Chrisitan Coalition's second example is onyl half the
story. After talking about freedom of expression, the treaty goes on
to say that "The exercise of this right may be subject to certain
restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and
are necessary." In other words, your kids aren't going to get the
right to get all sorts of pornography. The freedom of expression
article to the treaty is clearly subordinate to the laws of the
country in question, unlike what the Caolition would have you
believe. In fact, there are numerous other areas in the treaty which
repeat this fact. The Coalition claims that the treaty
"threatens the sovereignty of U.S.
law,"a claim which is wholly
unsubstantiated.
|
Back to the Anti-Pat home
page...
|