child conversion and the un convention on the rights of the child

7/28/2019 CHILD CONVERSION AND THE UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

1/9

Kulai MP: Child conversion goes against UNconvention

Malaysiakini 2 hours 6 minutes ago

View Photo

The bill allowing for unilateral child conversion should be withdrawn as the provision is

against the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Malaysia is a signatory, said

Kulai MP Teo Nie Ching

"The Administration of the Religion of Islam (Federal Territories) Bill 2013 on unilateral

conversion of minors to Islam is against the spirit of the Convention on the Rights of the

Child (CRC).

"It (the bill) should be reviewed and withdrawn immediately" said Teo in a press statement

today.

Teo ( right ), who is DAP assistant national publicity secretary, cited Article 18.1 of the CRC

which says:

"States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both

parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child."

Teo added, "As a party to the CRC, Malaysia recognises that both parents have common

responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child."

"By allowing a minor to be converted to the religion of Islam with a single parent's consent,

we are going to deny the non-converting parent from playing his/her role in the upbringing

of the child."

The proposed amendment to the bill, which states that only one parent's consent is needed to

convert a minor to Islam, has drawn widespread criticism from the Bar Council, NGOs, BN

component parties as well as from several members of the cabinet .

1
http://my.news.yahoo.com/photos/kulai-mp-child-conversion-goes-against-un-convention-photo-054621984.htmlhttp://my.news.yahoo.com/photos/kulai-mp-child-conversion-goes-against-un-convention-photo-054621984.html


2/9

The CRC, which Malaysia ratified in 1995, is considered a legally-binding document under

international law.

While Teo didn't mention it, the CRC also states that children have the right to freedom of

religion and that parents should only "provide direction".

"14.1 States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and

religion.

14.2 States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, whenapplicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her

right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

Rights of children must be upheld

July 3, 2013

COMMENT

By Charles Santiago

Its almost seems like a joke. I am referring to what ruling party leaders spew out, except

that their words send a shiver down my spine and have major repercussions on our

society.

A Barisan Nasional lawmaker, Bung Mokhtar Radin, has asked AirAsia X CEO AzranOsman Rani to migrate. And all Rani did was to criticize the Malay daily, UtusanMalaysia, over its racial editorials.

In another attack against AirAsia, a BN MP has raised the issue of the low-cost carrier

reviewing the length of its cabin crews skirt.

2
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/07/03/rights-of-children-must-be-upheld/attachment/kids-5/


3/9

It really amuses me that lawmakers are debating frivolous issues, especially when there is

a nationwide uproar against the governments efforts to push through the Administration

of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act Amendment Bill 2013 that seeks to ensure thatpermission from just one parent is enough to convert a child to Islam.

This strips children off their inherent right to choose their religion when they reach 18

years of age.

This Bill has received condemnation even from BNs component parties, with one

political party threatening to take the government to court.

Malaysia ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1995 to uphold itscommitment to the protection and welfare of her children. Although this was a major step

for the country, its ratification contained a number of reservations to the provisions of

the CRC.

These reservations were put in place since there were discrepancies between these CRC

articles and some national and Syariah laws.

Malaysia submitted its first report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2006,and in return the Committee submitted its Concluding Observations to Malaysia in 2007.

One of its crucial observations was that Malaysia reviews its dual legal system, the civil

and syariah laws, as some domestic laws are obstacles to the full realization of the CRC

in the country.

Six years later, we are faced with BN discreetly trying to ram the Bill down our throats,with even its coalition partners left in the dark.

If Malaysia was trying to show it is serious when it ratified the CRC, then the state should

protect the rights of children and not force conversion issues on them.

It does not take a brilliant mind to figure out that the Bill, if passed, would give an

advantage to one partner who simply has to convert to Islam to gain custody of thechildren.

I know we have heard many arguments against the Bill, which are linked to theencroachment on the rights of non-Muslims and alienating the non-Muslims even further.

But more importantly we should not forget that this issue concerns children who would

be subjected to the whims and fancy of one parent, whereby taking away their freedom of

choice.

As such, ratifying the CRC is not enough. The government must grow a political spine toensure the rights of children are upheld and not infringed upon. And in this case, ensure

that religion and the ego of parents do not crush those rights.

Charles Santiago is DAPs MP for Klang

3


4/9

Respecting our childrens freedom-

Amar SinghJULY 02, 2013

I want to thank every media or editor that has spoken up against the proposal by our

government to introduce a law allowing one parent to change their childrens religion. It

shows the courage of that media/editor and expresses the opinion of the majority of

Malaysians. This attempt by the government to introduce such a law is a violation of the

basic human rights of any individual and shows how little they respect the fundamental

freedoms of our children.

The United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) has been available since

1989 and signed by our Malaysian Prime Minister in December 1994. The UNCRC outlinesthe basic rights that should be accorded to any child. The fact that Malaysia is signatory

underlines that the government of Malaysia is committed to uphold these fundamental rights.

When countries ratify the Convention, they agree to review their laws relating to children.

Article 3 of the UNCRC clearly states that the best interests of children must be the primary

concern in making decisions that may affect children. And that all adults, including the

governing body of the country, should do what is best for children. This clearly includes

policies and laws.

Article 14 speaks about the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. To quote Children

have the right to think and believe what they want and to practise their religion, as long as

they are not stopping other people from enjoying their rights. Parents should help guide their

children in these matters. The Convention respects the rights and duties of parents in

providing religious and moral guidance to their children. Religious groups around the world

have expressed support for the Convention, which indicates that it in no way prevents

parents from bringing their children up within a religious tradition. At the same time, the

Convention recognises that as children mature and are able to form their own views, some

may question certain religious practices or cultural traditions. The Convention supports

children's right to examine their beliefs, but it also states that their right to express their

beliefs implies respect for the rights and freedoms of others.

This article acknowledges that it is our inherent right to choose what we want to believe in

and this is in line with all religions of the world. No religion practises compulsion, only its

misguided followers do so.

Every human being, child or adult must be given the freedom to choose what they want to

believe in. To remove this is a breach of our fundamental freedoms. That we have laws

4


5/9

prohibiting adults to choose their faith is unbelievable. To impose this on children without

their choice is unthinkable.

No child, parent or professional of any religious persuasion I have spoken to in the past few

days have disagreed with this. It is unthinkable that anyone can choose my job, marriage

partner or even my next meal without my permission. But here we are, allowing one parent tomake a decision on our most important choice in life. The truth is that neither parent should

choose, the individual should do so when they are mature enough and also be allowed to

change their choice later in life.

Article 4 of the UNCRC speaks of the responsibility of the government to take ALL available

measures to make sure childrens rights are respected, protected and fulfilled. Governments

are obligated to help families protect childrens rights and create an environment where they

can grow and reach their potential.

If the government introduces this law, it will violate the heart of the United Nation Convention

on the Rights of the Child. It will announce to the whole world that Malaysians are willing to

trample on the basic rights of every child in the country. It will clearly show we do not respect

our children as thinking individuals and are prepared to treat them as objects. This law is

NOT in the best interests of children, which must be our primary concern.

Article 12 & 13 of the UNCRC speak about respecting the views of children when making

decisions that affect them and as well as ensuring they have freedom of expression. I ask all

Malaysians who respect children to uphold their fundamental freedoms. In our society where

those in authority seldom listen to or consult children, let us collectively be their voice to

oppose this injustice. I appeal to all Malaysians elected to public office to defeat this unjust

legislation and place the interests and rights of our children at its rightful place.

*Datuk Dr Amar-Singh HSS is a Senior Consultant Community Paediatrician and reads

The Malaysian Insider.

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Children have rights as human beings and also need special care and protection.

5


6/9

UNICEFs mission is to advocate for the protection of childrens rights, to help meet their basicneeds and to expand their opportunities to reach their full potential. UNICEF is guided in doing this

by the provisions and principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Built on varied legal systems and cultural traditions, the Convention is a universally agreed set of

non-negotiable standards and obligations. These basic standardsalso called human rightssetminimum entitlements and freedoms that should be respected by governments. They are founded

on respect for the dignity and worth of each individual, regardless of race, colour, gender, language,religion, opinions, origins, wealth, birth status or ability and therefore apply to every human being

everywhere. With these rights comes the obligation on both governments and individuals not toinfringe on the parallel rights of others. These standards are both interdependent and indivisible; we

cannot ensure some rights withoutor at the expense ofother rights.

A legally binding instrument

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the first legally binding international instrument toincorporate the full range of human rightscivil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. In1989, world leaders decided that children needed a special convention just for them because peopleunder 18 years old often need special care and protection that adults do not. The leaders also

wanted to make sure that the world recognized that children have human rights too.

The Convention sets out these rights in 54 articles and two Optional Protocols. It spells out the basichuman rights that children everywhere have: the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; toprotection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to participate fully in family,cultural and social life. The four core principles of the Convention are non-discrimination; devotionto the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the

views of the child. Every right spelled out in the Convention is inherent to the human dignity andharmonious development of every child. The Convention protects children's rights by settingstandards in health care; education; and legal, civil and social services.

By agreeing to undertake the obligations of the Convention (by ratifying or acceding to it), national

governments have committed themselves to protecting and ensuring children's rights and they haveagreed to hold themselves accountable for this commitment before the international community.

States parties to the Convention are obliged to develop and undertake all actions and policies in thelight of the best interests of the child.

Child Custody and ReligionWhen parents of different faiths separate, how do courts decide whose

religion the children will follow?

When parents of different faiths separate, they don't always agree onwhose religion the children will follow. With increasing numbers ofinterfaith marriages and high divorce rates, this topic has recentlybeen argued in courtrooms across the country. The results? Ahodgepodge of decisions using different standards to establishdifferent rules.The Rights of Parents vs. The Best Interests of the Child

6


7/9

When called upon to resolve disputes between separated or divorcedparents who disagree about the religious upbringing of their children,courts attempt to balance competing concerns. On one hand, courtsmust protect an individual parent's First Amendment right to the freeexercise of religion as well as the right to raise children as that parent

sees fit, as long as the parenting choices do not endanger the welfareof the child. On the other hand, when making decisions about custodyand visitation arrangements, courts must protect the best interests ofthe child.When one parent complains that the other parent's religious activitiesare not in the best interests of the child, courts have the difficult taskof deciding whether it is necessary to encroach upon the other parent'sFirst Amendment and parenting rights by limiting religious activities.In some cases, the courts will take the wishes of the child into account.In In re Marriage of Boldt, 344 Or. 1 (2008), the state supreme courtsent a case back down to the trial court with instructions that the trial

judge take evidence about the opinions of a twelve-year-old boy aboutwhether he should be circumcised, an issue on which his parentsdisagreed for religious reasons. Generally, courts will consider theviews of children over 12 on issues of religion as well as issues ofcustody or visitation generally.The Law in Religion and Custody Cases

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet decided a case involvingreligious upbringing and custody, there is no uniform national law.Instead, the law varies from state to state. Most state courts apply oneof the following three legal standards when deciding these cases:

Actual or substantial harm. The court will restrict a parent's FirstAmendment or parenting rights only if that parent's religiouspractices cause actual or substantial harm to the child.

Risk of harm. The court may restrict a parent's First Amendmentor parenting rights if that parent's religious practices might harmthe child in the future.

No harm required. The custodial parent's right to influence thechildren's religious upbringing of her is considered exclusive. If thecustodial parent objects to the noncustodial parent's religiousactivities, that's the end of it: The court will defer to the custodialparent's wishes.

The Actual or Substantial Harm StandardCourts applying this standard will restrict a parent's religious activitiesonly if the other parent proves that those activities cause substantialor actual harm to the child. This standard is used in many states.The cases discussed in this section provide examples of how courtsfollowing the actual or substantial harm standard may rule in varioussituations. Keep in mind that these decisions do not have to be

7
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/child-custody-religion-29887.html#TheActualorSubstantialHarmStandardhttp://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/child-custody-religion-29887.html#TheRiskofHarmStandardhttp://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/child-custody-religion-29887.html#TheNoHarmRequiredStandardhttp://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/child-custody-religion-29887.html#TheActualorSubstantialHarmStandardhttp://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/child-custody-religion-29887.html#TheRiskofHarmStandardhttp://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/child-custody-religion-29887.html#TheNoHarmRequiredStandard


8/9

followed by courts in other states or, sometimes, in the same state thatthe decision came from.Munoz v. Munoz:Exposure to two religions does not causeharmIn Munoz v. Munoz, 79 Wash. 2d 810, 489 P.2d 1133 (1971), the state

of Washington's highest court ruled that exposing children to twodifferent religions (Mormon and Catholic) is not harmful in and of itselfand therefore does not justify restricting a parent's religious activities.Pater v. Pater:Restrictive religious customs are notnecessarily harmfulIn Pater v. Pater, 63 Ohio St. 3d 393, 588 N.E. 2d 794 (1992), Ohio'sSupreme Court ruled that religious customs (Jehovah's Witness in thiscase) that restrict a child's social activities -- even if they separate thechild from peers or go against community standards -- are not enoughto justify court intervention unless the practices harm the mental orphysical health of the child.

Kendall v. Kendall:Physical acts and verbal threats justifyreligious restrictionsIn Kendall v. Kendall, 426 Mass. 238, 687 N.E.2d 1228 (1997), thehighest court in Massachusetts ruled that a father's verbal threats andphysical acts toward his children, which were designed to interferewith their Orthodox Jewish religious practices, were enough to warrantrestrictions on his First Amendment and parenting rights. (A court-appointed doctor found that the father's actions -- cutting off his son'spayes (the curls customarily worn by Orthodox Jewish males) andtelling his children that anyone outside the fundamentalist faith was"damned to go to hell" --caused mental and emotional harm to thechildren. The court barred the father from sharing his religious beliefs,praying, or studying the Bible with his children if those activities wouldcause the kids to reject their mother or their Jewish identity or causethem emotional distress.The Risk of Harm StandardIn a handful of states, courts have used a different legal standard todecide cases where religion and custody collide. In these courts, aparent seeking to curtail the other parent's religious activities need notdemonstrate actual or substantial harm to the child, but only that thereis a risk that the child might be harmed in the future.

The No Harm Required StandardIn a few states, courts do not apply the actual or substantial harmstandard or the risk of harm standard. Instead, these courts use asimple rule: The parent with sole legal custody has exclusive controlover the child's religious education. If a dispute arises over religiousupbringing, the court will curtail the noncustodial parent's religiousactivities and enforce the custodial parent's desires. These courtsreason that interfering with the noncustodial parent's religious

8


9/9

activities does not violate First Amendment rights, because therestrictions apply only to the time period in which the parent is withthe children. At all other times, the parent is free to practice whateverreligion the person chooses.When parents have joint legal custody (which a majority of states now

award unless it would harm the child), teachings from both religionsmay be allowed.

Johns v. Johns:Father forced to bring children to church duringvisitationInJohns v. Johns, 53 Ark. App. 90, 918 S.W. 2d 728 (1996), an Arkansascourt deferred to the custodial parent's wishes. In this case, the fathercomplained that the mother, who had legal and physical custody of thechildren, was preventing him from visiting with his kids. The mothersaid she was refusing visits because he didn't take the kids to churchand Sunday school. The trial court ordered Mr. Johns to bring the kidsto church. The father appealed. The appellate court agreed with the

trial court, holding that because the mother was the custodial parent,her desire that the kids attend church each week was paramount.

Zummo v. Zummo:Joint legal custody equals two religionsInZummo v. Zummo, 394 Pa. Super. 30, 574 A.2d 1130 (1990), thedivorcing couple's dispute about the religious upbringing of theirchildren was resolved by ordering the father to take the children toJewish services (the mother's religion) and also allowing him to bringthe children to Catholic services (his religion). The court believed that,because the couple shared joint legal custody, they each had the rightto instill religious beliefs in their kids.

9

child conversion and the un convention on the rights of the child

Documents