The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), signed in 1989, has been opened to ratification since November 1989.

This Convention has been ratified by the French Government, but:
1. Formal restrictions have been introduced, on several Articles:
a. On Article 6, in order to avoid any application in France which could reduce the right of women to abortion
b. On Article 30, concerning minorities: there are no minorities in the French Republic; all citizens are supposed to have the same rights.
c. On Article 40, where some parts are not compatible with French laws

2. Just before this ratification, the French Government contacted 15 experts to gather their opinion on this Convention. The story has been told by one of them, Aldo Naouri, in his book Eduquer ses enfants – l’urgence d’aujourd’hui (“Educating our children – a priority for today”). After discussion, the 15 experts, who did not know each other before, reached the unanimous conclusion that the French Government should not ratify this Convention, which is not at all suited to our country; the Convention would increase ill-treatment of children by enslavement of parents. But when they went to the Ministry, they were told that for diplomatic reasons, the French Government had already ratified the Convention.

More generally, the Convention of the Rights of the Child is not compatible with the French Republic, where only citizens over 18 may have rights. Children are legally dependent on adults, generally their parents. This is connected with what the philosopher Condorcet propounded: the French Republic can survive only if citizens are educated. This has been the source of the obligation for the State to offer public education.

Giving rights to children is against this principle. An example is of the 46 members of the German Parliament who proposed in July 2008 to establish a real universal suffrage by giving the right to vote in all general elections to children from birth. In the press, they called them “Pampers electors”. This proposal has been refused by the German Constitutional Court.

In France, we saw a direct application of this Convention in June 1989 with Article 10 of the “orientation law for education” by Lionel Jospin, the then Prime Minister. This Article allows free expression by pupils, including about religion, in public education. It is a contradiction of the French Separation law and public education tradition. After the summer holidays, in September 1989, we got the first problems with religious signs in these schools. These problems are directly connected with the UNCRC.

The first question then is: is this Convention useful? Read carefully, the UNCRC provides the answer. No, since all children’s rights could be formulated in terms of obligations for Governments or citizens. It was possible to protect the children without giving them formal rights.

The second question is: what are the consequences of this Convention? One of them is given above. More generally, the CRC regards children as if they were young citizens. But they are not, they are future citizens. Giving them rights will disturb families, increase the difficulties of parents in educating their children, and create conflicts.

Roger Lepeix is Treasurer, IHEU