Hacker News Reader

Comment by jkot | Hacker News Reader

??? I dont follow.

Parents have right for due process, right to raise their own children and so on. Children also have some rights, those might colide wiuth rights of parents in some cases.

Problem is that in Norway parents have ZERO rights. Norway have not signed relevant EU treaties for Child Protection. Once children is taken by social servies, there is were little chance for return. SS than bullies parents, forces them to divorce, not even allowed to seek help.

To put it in US context: Imagine Alabama would start abducting children of people who just moved in, because their parenting is not religous enough. All perfectly legal with zero chance to get children back (or sometimes even see them ever again).

View on HN

> Problem is that in Norway parents have ZERO rights.

This is obviously not true. Norway has laws that safeguard both parents and children, and is in the process of ratifying the relevant Hague convention.

Bear in mind that when you read or hear about these seemingly horrifying stories, you only hear one side of the story. This is due to very strict privacy laws protecting all parties.

Um, the horrifying side of the story is of the parents and the child. What other part of the story would be protected by privacy laws.

Well everything. Barnevernet cannot comment due to privacy laws.

So you get the stories about the "unfortunate parents" that do not understand why their child(ren) were taken away. The reality is that you never hear about the abuse or neglect in these cases... and that is the truly horrifying part.

> Parents have right for due process,

I can agree with that.

> right to raise their own children and so on.

Says who? Why, precisely? Where is this right enumerated and what is its basis?

> Imagine Alabama would start abducting children of people who just moved in, because their parenting is not religous enough.

But the issue with this is religious discrimination and a lack of separation between church and state. The wrongness of this has nothing to do with parental rights.

http://www.unicef.org.uk/Documents/Publication-pdfs/UNCRC_PR...

> Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,

> Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,

And Article 5

> States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

There are reasons why states can intervene in family life. But those interventions need to be in the child's best interest; and they need to be proportionate.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Article 12

> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Also probably a bit of article 16.

Yeah, none of that reads to me as "parents have the right to raise their own children". It can certainly be construed that way when convenient for people who want to keep a leash on their kids, but if you actually read all of those qualifiers, it's actually saying the exact opposite.

Who determines the "appropriate direction and guidance"? What is a "family environment"? When is "interference" arbitrary? As an example, if local custom dictates beating a child mercilessly every other month for absolutely no reason but tradition, that's a good reason for intervention, to me. I don't care about local custom in such a case.

(Also, holy shit, you think honor and reputation are sacrosanct according to the UDHR? I just lost a ton of respect for that document if your reading is correct. Goodbye, journalism.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com