Talk:Children's rights/Archive 2

"perceived children's rights"

The article begins:

"Children's rights are the perceived human rights of children with particular attention to the rights of special protection and care afforded to the young,"

Perceived here seems like a weasel word and I have removed it. Are we implying that Children's rights may not be human rights... or that children may not be human?

It seems to me that, while what the subset of human rights that qualify as strictly children's rights is a debatable topic (ie is the right to a State financed education really a child's right? Should it be?) what should be unambiguous is that children's ARE children's human rights and that children are human... --Cybermud (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 74.93.226.126, 1 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Child Marriage (film)

74.93.226.126 (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Celestra (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers Actions

Can anyone inform me if it is against a childs rights to be placed outcide by a teacher in the pouring rain without any waterproof clothing on? The child was only wearing jeans,t-shirt and a shirt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.34.58 (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the appropriate forum to ask for or receive legal advice. Go talk with an attorney in your area. Seabas73 (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clock boy? (image)

It would be good to see a small section explaining what that is, or a link, or something. Thanks :) --TyrS 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

advocates (suggested section)

It would be good to see a section on advocates including some young people/children who are advocates. (I believe a few exist I just don't have time to research it at the moment.)--TyrS 02:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

RE: Section on United State's law

First, quite a few of the links are bad that have been cited to, and as a result I cannot confirm or deny the legitimacy of the sources in order to discuss them. In particular the Cornell citations (which is not a scholarly source per se just because it has a law.cornell.edu address.)
Second, the comment regarding the Equal Protection rights of children generally being the same as adults is terribly incorrect. Children have fewer privacy rights as a result of their age, maturity and vulnerable nature, and need guardianship consent to engage in most legal activities (to contract, attend school, etc.)
Third, the case cited does not "reinforce" the false Equal Protection statement before. The Gault case dealt with procedural Due Process, not equal protection.
Last, this section needs a lot of work to outline the areas of the law in which children are treated differently from adults (such as government searches) and the laws which are molded to protect children (such as statutory rape laws, child pornography laws, and "the best interest of the child" standard).Seabas73 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information

I propose the following change: the paragraph:

"As minors by law children do not have autonomy or the right to make decisions on their own for themselves in any known jurisdiction of the worldto become

is incorrect. it should be removed entirely. my reasons are as follows:

The existing quote cannot be found anywhere in the source given
The overall meaning of the given source does not state that children have no autonomy, instead it discusses a small number of very specific issues (such as the right for adobted children to know who their biological pearnts are and corporal punishment). This has nothing to do with the existing quote
In the UK there is no law which states that minors cannot make their own decisions there is also no law which states that pearents (or other carers) can enforce their own decisions upon their minor children to take one example pearents can commit kidnap and false imprisonment against their children. this effecivly limits any capacity they have to enforce any decision against their children.

There are specific laws which restrict the freedom of minors (for example age restricted products stop people bellow specific ages from buying certain porducts and the tatooing of minors act means that minors under the age of 18 cannot get tattoes) however these are only exceptions to the usual law. this means that the UK would ammount to a known durisitction in which children have autonomy --Iconofsin1 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]