Parental rights and the pandemic

What a federal election candidate got wrong

Welcome to my occasional exploration of how children’s rights are everyday rights. This is my first column. I’m not used to public writing, but it’s the scholarly thing to do. And children’s rights are worth talking about.

I read a news story today about a federal election candidate for the People’s Party of Canada calling New Brunswick’s Minister of Education “a human rights violator” (and more colourful names) for “disgracing parental rights”. The candidate was referring to the provincial government’s masking and vaccination policies for children as part of the ongoing pandemic. “They are not the state’s children”, the candidate is reported to have shouted.

To put it academically, the candidate believes, very strongly it seems, that parents are sovereign over their children as a matter of right. Children are not independent of their parents’ will and the state has no power over parents in matters related to their children.

The candidate is at least thirty years behind the times. If not a century or two. But I’ll stick to thirty years: Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991 (here’s a child-friendly PDF). The Convention starts with the premise that children are part of society. Children are people whose needs and capabilities change over time. Children, as people, have inalienable rights. Children’s inalienable rights include their right to survival and to adequate health care, and to having decisions about them made in their best interests. Children also have a right to family, to their culture and heritage, and to an education that develops their talents and abilities. Because the Convention comes from international law, the state has the primary duty to ensure children’s rights are respected.

The state therefore has a role in children’s lives. Part of that role is respecting parents’ roles in their children’s lives.

Parents are an integral part of realizing children’s rights. The Convention explicitly focuses on families in its preamble: “family … should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community.” Article 5 protects parents’ right to provide “appropriate direction and guidance” to children. Article 8 ensures a child can preserve their family relations and article 9 protects children from being taken away from their families without a good reason. Children’s rights protect parents’ rights.

This doesn’t mean that parents necessarily have the last word, though. Having responsibilities within the community means also taking into consideration other people’s rights. Providing direction and guidance has to be done in a way that respects the rights of children – parenting that is authoritative, not authoritarian. Respecting the rights of children means making decisions in children’s individual and collective best interests.

It is in the best interests of children to be in school. It is in the best interests of children to be healthy, today and tomorrow. It is also in the best interests of children to have a say in their lives. Contrary to what the vociferous federal election candidate believes, the human rights violation happens when children’s rights are “disgraced”.

---

Where some non-linked thoughts came from: Children’s rights concepts from Collins & Paré (2016), Covell, Howe & Blokhuis (2018), Howe & Covell (2007, 2013), and Paré (2017). Parenting concepts from Tyler & Trinker (2017). See my 2020 article in the Canadian Journal of Children’s Rights for more thoughts, including on parental rights.

Full disclosure: Paré is my Ph.D. thesis supervisor.