In his opening argument against the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Farris asserted that the pro-treaty side was not doing its due diligence and had not thoroughly analyzed the full legal effect of the law. \u201cWe don\u2019t hear citations to articles of the treaty,\u201d he intoned. \u201cWe don\u2019t hear consideration of the reports, the concluding observations, by the Committee on the Rights to Persons with Disability. We don\u2019t hear the kind of legal analysis that would be appropriate for analyzing the legal impact of this treaty.\u201d Consistent with this criticism, Farris cited two experts known to be sympathetic toward the treaty in order to support his legal analysis: Columbia University\u2019s Louis Henkin<\/a>, one of the most influential legal scholars in the realm of human rights and international law, and University of London\u2019s Geraldine Van Bueren<\/a>, a leading human rights expert.<\/p>\n If you read my previous post on Michael Farris\u2019s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee<\/a>\u2014and you should\u2014you will know that prominent homeschool advocate Michael Farris is arguably the<\/em> holdup to the Senate signing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Last week he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, arguing that the Senate should not ratify the treaty because doing so would limit parents\u2019 rights to make decisions for their children and ultimately have a negative effect on homeschooling\u2014even though Farris is essentially the only one to interpret the treaty in this way. When the Senate signs a treaty, it often also has to pass new laws for implementation, which will put the treaty into effect. This is not the case with the CRPD, because the CRPD itself is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is already a part of U.S. law.<\/p>\n Farris denies that this is the case: he believes that ratifying the CRPD will inexorably lead to changes in US law. During his testimony, he cited references to Henkin and Van Bueren, whose arguments he claims the Senators have neither read nor even considered. But the problem here is not the Senate: it\u2019s Farris.<\/p>\n Out of my desire to understand his reasoning, I looked up Farris\u2019s citations and read them in their original context. What I found was stunning: the simple reality is that Farris took both Henkin\u2019s and Van Bueren\u2019s statements out of context and misapplied them to his own twisted legal theory. By citing each quote out of context, Farris was able to, as Senator Menendez said, take \u201ca noncontroversial statement and twist it into something that\u2019s rather sinister.\u201d The very basis of Farris\u2019s protestations against the CRPD, then, is a lie.<\/p>\n [\u2026] the United States apparently seeks to ensure that its adherence to convention will not change or require change in US laws, policies, or practices, even when they fall below international standards. [\u2026] Reservations designed to reject any obligation to rise above existing law and practice are of dubious propriety: if states generally entered such reservations, the convention would be futile. [\u2026] Even friends of the United States have objected to its reservations that are incompatible with that object and purpose and are therefore invalid. The United States, it is said, seeks to sit in judgment on others but will not submit its human rights behavior to international judgment. To many the attitude reflected in such reservations is offensive. The conventions are only for other states, not for the United States.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Note the bracketed ellipses. For those readers unfamiliar with academic conventions, an ellipsis is used to indicate that text has been left out of a longer text. This is why a movie critic can write a review saying \u201cthis movie was no fun or good, you should stay home and spend the money for your family\u2019s tickets on a new couch\u201d and the movie producers can run an ad saying the critic said \u201cfun\u2026good\u2026for your family\u201d. Ellipses can disguise or hide what someone really said. Always take note when you see lots of ellipses.<\/p>\n Farris\u2019s usage here was less egregious than the hypothetical movie producer\u2019s ad, but did leave out important context. The full context of what Henkin said is found in an article he authored titled \u201cU.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker,\u201d published in The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 89, No. 2 (Apr., 1995), pp. 341-350. If you have access to JSTOR, you can read it here<\/a>. The words Farris left out are in bold.<\/p>\n By its reservations, the United States apparently seeks to assure that its adherence to a convention will not change, or require change, in U.S. laws, policies or practices, even where they fall below international standards. For example, in ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United States refused to accept a provision prohibiting capital punishment for crimes committed by persons under eighteen years of age. In ratifying the Torture Convention, the United States, in effect, reserved the right to inflict inhuman or degrading treatment (when it is not punishment for crime), and criminal punishment when it is inhuman and degrading (but not \u201ccruel and unusual\u201d).<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n You can see why Henkin\u2014again, a leading human rights lawyer\u2014would be rather appalled at the US ducking such a provision, which is indeed contrary to the \u201cobject and purpose\u201d of the treaty. (Indeed, the Supreme Court later prohibited capital punishment for persons under the age of eighteen in 2005\u2019s Roper v. Simmons.)<\/p>\n Farris admitted that while the context was different, Henkin\u2019s \u201cprinciple was applicable\u201d to the treaty at stake. This is denying a rather major contextual change. The main difference between Henkin\u2019s argument in 1995 and Farris\u2019s argument in 2013 is that when ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the United States used a reservation in order to create a loophole, thus allowing the US to continue to execute juveniles under the age of 18 who were convicted of capital crimes. There is no such similar loophole being created by any proposed reservations to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Farris may genuinely believe that the reservations create such a loophole, but Farris also has a rather idiosyncratic view of both the phrase \u201cthe best interests of the child\u201d and the purpose of the UN that is not reflected in mainstream thought and would not be supported by Henkin.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the issue remains: why cite Henkin? Henkin\u2019s legal opinion is that the US should ratify treaties with fewer reservations in order to increase accountability to other UN member nations and that the US should enact legislation that would bring it to the same human rights standard as other foreign nations. Farris, who wishes to \u201cenact an amendment to the Constitution so the demogogues [sic] in Washington DC can never again subject this nation to the duty to follow the law of the United Nations\u201d, clearly does not wish to cede any type of sovereignty or oversight to the UN. He certainly would not want the US to follow the same kind of homeschooling laws<\/a> currently practiced by Germany<\/a>. It is very strange that Farris would be citing Henkin\u2019s views on this one particular issue even as he admits that he disagrees with the substance of Henkin\u2019s views, as well as with the conclusions that Henkin draws: Henkin thought that the US should stop using RUDs to duck responsibilities to foreign nations, while Farris would apparently prefer that the US stop signing treaties altogether.<\/p>\n (Perhaps Farris is regularly sloppy, or perhaps he\u2019s just not very good with details, but it\u2019s interesting to note that not only did Farris misspell Henkin\u2019s name twice in his written brief, he also continually referred to Henkin in the present tense during his testimony. He did not seem to realize that Professor Henkin had passed away in October 2010. In contrast, Senator Menendez properly referred to Henkin using the past tense, and noted that not only would Henkin be in favor of the treaty, the human rights institutions that Henkin had founded and participated in also support ratification of the treaty.)<\/p>\n Best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child\u2019s or the parents\u2019, providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This is clearly a passage that has imprinted on Farris\u2019s brain, as he cites this exact quote in eight different documents on ParentalRights.org (in addition to citing various other quotes from different sections of the same document of Van Bueren\u2019s). Like the previous quote from Henkin, it is incomplete and taken out of context.<\/p>\n I found a more complete version of Van Bueren\u2019s quote in her 1995 work<\/a>, \u201cThe International Law on the Rights of the Child,\u201d on page 45\u201446, in a section called \u201cThe New Principles of Intervention.\u201d The fuller context of the quote, which I located, makes it clear that Van Bueren is providing a historical overview of the way that the best interests standard has been applied, rather than stating the definitive legal view of the position.<\/p>\n Although the best interest of the child is common in domestic legislation it is not expressedly incorporated into many major human rights instruments. So, for example, neither the European Convention on Human Rights nor the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights includes any such reference. This is partly because the rights approach of human rights treaties is at odds with the traditional welfare approach of best interests which undermines the child\u2019s autonomy. Therefore, the inclusion of best interests of the child in a rights treaty, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, suggests that this traditional concept has been remoulded. In its broadest application the principle is articulated in article 3(1) of the Convention, which provides that, \u201cIn all actions concerning children whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.\u201d [ . . . ]<\/p>\n As has been frequently observed, although the question is viewed from the child\u2019s best interests, the answer is frequently given from an adult perspective. Best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions\u2019 for either the child\u2019s or the parents\u2019, providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child, Thus the Convention challenges the concept that family life is always in the best interests of children and that parents are always capable of deciding what is in the best interests of children.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Farris may not agree with this expanded version any more than he agrees with the limited quote he has been using, but by placing Van Bueren\u2019s quote in context, it\u2019s clear that she is discussing the way that one specific convention\u2014the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)\u2014uses the phrase \u201cthe best interests of the child\u201d. And in fact, an unbiased look at the full context of Van Bueren\u2019s work would show that, far from Farris\u2019s view of a static and nefarious concept, Van Bueren argues that the phrase \u201cbest interests of the child\u201d is not a \u201clegal term of art\u201d but rather an evolving legal concept that has been interpreted differently over time by various conventions on human and child rights.<\/p>\n (Since Farris also opposes the ratification of the CRC, it is worth including a short parenthetical on that treaty. Contrary to Farris\u2019s assertions on the subject, the CRC actually supports the child\u2019s right to be raised by his or her parents and includes numerous other provisions on the importance of parental involvement and decision-making in children\u2019s upbringing. Yes, the CRC challenges the idea that parents always know what is best for their children\u2014and the existence of abusive and neglectful parents suggests that this idea very much needs to be challenged\u2014but it does not in fact make children wards of the state as Farris would have his followers think. For more, see this fact sheet published by UNICEF<\/a>.)<\/p>\n The attentive reader will wonder why I am using a different text than Farris did for this quote. The answer is quite simple: the book that Farris cites does not exist. Van Bueren has never published a book called \u201cInternational Rights of the Child\u201d, nor does she list any books<\/a> published during the year 2006. Searching for the same citation that Farris used in his written testimony only turns up documents on his website ParentalRights.org, or articles referring positively to Farris and his views. Indeed, I may be the first person ever to check Farris\u2019s citation for accuracy.<\/p>\n I suspect, though I cannot outright prove, that instead of citing Van Bueren\u2019s work directly, Farris is citing a study guide from a class he took for his distance-learning LLM.<\/p>\n The circumstantial evidence for this conclusion is very great. The program that Michael Farris was likely enrolled in can be found here<\/a>, and it advertises as a selling point that the programs \u201chave been developed by academics within Queen Mary and UCL Law departments.\u201d Van Bueren is a professor at Queen Mary College at the University of London, and a course called \u201cInternational Rights of the Child\u201d is listed in the course catalogue<\/a> for the distance-learning LLM (page 40). The required text for the class is a book written by Van Bueren. The class is broken down into four sections labeled A, B, C, and D, which matches the citations Farris uses throughout ParentalRights.org. While I was not able to locate the study guide for Section D, I did find a study guide for Section C<\/a>, which seems to be a summary of Van Bueren\u2019s earlier work. It appears that Van Bueren took part in preparing or at least approved the adaptation of her previous work into modules for the course offered by the University of London, which would explain why an identical sentence shows up in two works dated 11 years apart.<\/p>\n I have reached out to Michael Farris on his Facebook page and asked if he could clarify his sourcing for the Van Bueren quote. He has not yet responded to me, though he has posted several links since I asked. I would welcome any clarifications he can provide, and I\u2019m sure Libby Anne would give him space to reply to this and the other questions I\u2019ve raised.<\/p>\n It is not clear to me that Farris is deliberately twisting the context of Van Bueren\u2019s quote, at least not in the same way that he knowingly used Henkin\u2019s quote to apply to a different situation than the one Henkin intended. It is entirely possible that Michael Farris, while doing the required coursework for his online LLM degree from the University of London, stumbled upon the truncated quote he cites so regularly in his articles. If the quote appeared on its own when placed in the study guide, he may not have realized the greater context of the quote, and thus may have interpreted it as a prescriptive guide for using the phrase \u201cbest interests of the child\u201d, and not as a descriptive definition given at one point in time, by one particular convention on children\u2019s rights. If this is so, then Farris, like many graduate students before and after him, simply skipped doing the further required reading. In this scenario, he is guilty of doing only the bare minimum reading in order to graduate, rather than being guilty of the odiousness of deliberately and repeatedly twisting the context of the quote in order to further his own agenda.<\/p>\n Or, as he did to Henkin, he understood the context of Van Bueren\u2019s quote, but deliberately took her words out of their original context in order to mislead others.<\/p>\n In both cases, he has committed the very great sin of improperly citing an unpublished study guide or course module as though it were a published book, incidentally making it very difficult for anyone to find the original citation. It\u2019s almost like Farris felt he had something to hide.<\/p>\n And while it is a great rhetorical device to cite the direct and unvarnished words of your opponent\u2014the observant reader will note my fondness for the tactic\u2014it works best when you understand your opponents\u2019 arguments. Farris does not understand Van Bueren\u2019s text, and is willfully misapplying Henkin\u2019s argument. His appeals to authority and expertise are thus invalid.<\/p>\n Now let\u2019s return to Farris\u2019s testimony last week. Farris said on his facebook page afterwards that giving his testimony to the Senate \u201cwasn\u2019t really any fun.\u201d I must admit, tearing apart Michael Farris\u2019s flimsy excuses for a legal argument has been great fun for me, though I do worry it is unsporting to be fighting a battle of wits with someone who shows every indication of having arrived unarmed.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the real problem, though. For all my snark here? Farris has won. And he is continuing to win.<\/p>\n Farris may have made himself look silly in front of the Senate, but he has shifted the Overton Window<\/a> of homeschooling policy. We are unable to talk about ratifying a treaty on the disabled\u2014a treaty which we are already following all of the requirements of\u2014without multiple reassurances that homeschooling will remain unrestricted. These are completely unrelated topics and they should never have been conflated in the first place. The only reason we are talking about them together now is because of the twisted and outright false legal reasoning of a man who cannot string a sentence together about why homeschooling and disability are being discussed together without resorting to fallacies, and a man who hours afterwards is already trumpeting how persecuted he was. He cannot tell the truth about an event, even when the Senate session is broadcast, thus recording his every word.<\/p>\n On his Facebook page, Farris posted the following:<\/p>\n The shots were cheap and it wasn\u2019t really any fun.<\/p>\n But here is the point. When the left stoops to these kinds of tactics, it is a sign of two things:<\/p>\n 1. They have no effective answers to the substance of my arguments.<\/p>\n 2. I am having an impact.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I hope that these blog posts have demonstrated to you that there are indeed very effective arguments for Farris\u2019s arguments, and that Senators Boxer, Durbin, and Menendez used them well during the committee hearing. But I cannot deny the truth of Farris\u2019s second assertion. He is having an impact. He has an agenda. And he has been using the members of HSLDA to implement that agenda<\/a>.<\/p>\n It is long past time to take control away.<\/p>\n In the same Facebook post I cited above, Farris claimed that \u201cthe left\u201d is targeting certain Republican senators who have previously voted against the treaty and asking them to change their vote. It\u2019s now long past time for the left\u2014and the center, and the right\u2014to do just that. On PBS\u2019s Newshour<\/a>, Senator Menendez said that he counts 61 votes affirmed for the treaty, including Democrats, Republican, and Independents. For the Senate to pass the treaty, he needs 67. You can\u2014and should\u2014get involved. It\u2019s as simple as picking up your cell phone.<\/p>\n To quote Farris himself in a fashion he may agree with, \u201cIf we let [Farris] get away with these tactics\u2014our movement, indeed our country is doomed.\u201d Truer words.<\/p>\n If you live in one of these states, please call your senator and ask them to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). As long as the US refuses to ratify the CRPD, we look silly and backward and provide other nations with an excuse for refusing to sign the treaty or refusing to implement it. We need to lead by example, and ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is part of setting that example.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/166\/2013\/11\/sources.jpg\" "\\"sources\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe Henkin Citation<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/166\/2013\/11\/Henkin.jpg\" "\\"Henkin\\"")
<\/a>In his opening statement, Farris quoted this line by Louis Henkin<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n
\n
The Van Bueren Citation<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/166\/2013\/11\/Van-Bueren.jpg\" "\\"Van")
<\/a>I earlier mentioned Farris\u2019s idiosyncratic views on the phrase \u201cthe best interests of the child.\u201d It\u2019s certainly one he uses often; he referred to it six times during his testimony. In Farris\u2019s view, this phrase is the smoking gun that reveals the perfidious nature of the UN treaty and its sinister aim to steal children from their parents\u2019 authority and place them under the government\u2019s control. His citation for this claim is always the same quote from Geraldine Van Bueren<\/a>, which he cites as \u201cGeraldine Van Bueren, International Rights of the Child, Section D University of London, 46 (2006).<\/p>\n\n
\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
Call Your Senators!<\/strong><\/h2>\n