4 ms·
At least the Games serve to shine light on Japan's refusal to respect UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child, despite ratifying it in 1994. Japan's Law inc
by sheepdestroyer 5y ago
At least the Games serve to shine light on Japan's refusal to respect UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child, despite ratifying it in 1994.
Japan's Law incites and rewards Child Abductions by giving sole custody to the first abductor. Judicial visitation decisions are not enforced.
By refusing to protect the fundamental Right of Children to access both their parents directly and regularly, as per the CRC, Japan is a massive and frequent Child Right violator.
In 2019, Japan Minister of Justice publicly and cynically qualified the CRC of "non-binding", and the European Parliament's resolution denouncing the violations of being "unfunded".
Is is estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 new children each year, the majority Japanese, have this basic Human Right violated in Japan.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/japan-custody-fichot/2021/07/11/f10cd538-e224-11eb-88c5-4fd6382c47cb_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/japan-cust...
- IshKebab 5y agoI don't think the games have shone a light on that at all, sorry. First I've heard of it.
- throwaway2037 5y agoIt was written about in the Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/d43090eb-e005-4042-8b7a-13ab00ac08b3 https://www.ft.com/content/d43090eb-e005-4042-8b7a-13ab00ac0...
- chrisseaton 5y agoWhole thing seems to be about the denied rights of parents, not children? Doesn’t mention what any child wants anywhere. Weird to dress it up as being about the children.
- sheepdestroyer 5y agoChildren benefit to have both parents in their lives, especially when young and can not express consent. There are enough studies and exemples in every other developed countries where it's the norm that it's not a matter of opinion. The UN's CRC is indeed about Children's Human Rights. The specific article in question being Art 9.3
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- chrisseaton 5y agoYet the story is 'man denied right to see children', not 'children denied right to see father'.
- sheepdestroyer 5y agoThe oldest being 6, they don't have much agency. Are you trying hard to not understand?
- gjsman-1000 5y agoThe US does not respect these “rights” either. And just because the UN says it doesn’t make it so.
- sheepdestroyer 5y agoHuman Rights are Universal and Unalienable. But it's the fact that Japan chose to ratify the CRC treaty that "makes it so".
- gjsman-1000 5y agoHuman Rights as defined by the UN and Politicians are not necessarily Universal or Unalienable. This does not mean I dispute that there are human rights. Politicians have every incentive to claim something as a right when it’s not. For example, the UN could announce the newfound “Right to a Gun-Free Society.” Despite the name, it’s not Universal or Unalienable.
- chrisseaton 5y ago> Human Rights are Universal and Unalienable Clearly not. You can go to many places on earth, even major western countries, where people do not have these rights.
- sheepdestroyer 5y agoPeople always have those rights, no matter where they live, their religion, their cast or what not. That's the definition of Universal. However, they are sometimes not respected and it's the duty of the international community to lobby against the perpetrators especially when they took the moral engagement to recognise them officially. It not the wild west, there are voluntarily agreed upon international treaties that can be brought as a base for these discussions.
- chrisseaton 5y ago> People always have those rights, no matter where they live, their religion, their cast or what not. Many people do not have these rights. This cannot possibly be a surprise to you? > That's the definition of Universal. We know. That's why they aren't universal rights. > However, they are sometimes not respected If you live under an authority that doesn't think you have these rights, then you don't have them.