Planetary Pinball Cheats

The "security" above all ... also the rights?

Thursday, March 11, 2010 the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from an Albanian citizen expelled from our country, the father with a wife waiting for Italian citizenship, had argued that his request the presence of a child who goes to school. The Court also clarified that the right to education of a child is not sufficient to tackle safety laws lived near. Praise of the League, applauded the majority approval of the Minister Gelmini.

E 'is now a trickle, this. Arciragazzi and all major organizations dealing with Children and adolescents are forced to become a tour de force to write press releases about events gradually become more severe, more and more sad, more and more racist. It 'been a disaster, that of our country, that policy has become a cultural and manifests itself even within the legal hours.
the face of such aberrations is difficult to remain calm and try, once again, to explain, calmly and patiently. We try again:

• the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, ratified by Italy on May 27, 1991, then State Law, art. 3, calls upon States to consider the interests of the child prominent than any other laws and regulations, of any kind. This is one of the cardinal principles of international law on Children and Adolescents, present in the various charters of rights since the Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1959 (which later transformed and became the convention that we all know, all except perhaps the Supreme Court , the League, and the majority of the Gelmini). E ' a final principle, clear and without any possible interpretations: Article 3 Convention on the Rights of the Child - In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the interest of the child shall be a primary consideration.

• always the UN Convention on the Rights of 1989 states, in Article. 2, that no discrimination is acceptable, for any reason. This means in particular that the State is responsible, the same amount for all the rights of all children living on the soil national is not eligible for either "discrimination" is not linked to the Italian citizenship of the parents

• the same then invokes the UN Convention right to education, the right to have a family, the right not to be separated from their parents

• the Italian Constitution, then, provides the right to education for all children, regardless of the nationality of their parents. And in fact the children of foreigners go to school, that is their right guaranteed by our Constitution.

these 4 points would be enough to remind everyone that school is a right for all children, the family is the first of rights - except of course the right to life - children and that therefore it must be deemed fundamental part of that HIGHER INTEREST that, without appeal, the Law 176 of 1991 (the ratification of the UN Convention by Italy) to allocate to any child.

fingerprints were not enough, the "percentage share" of foreign children in the classroom, the many initiatives that discourage or prevent the exercise of Rights. Now we turn also to the artificial division of families, the removal of parents securitarian reasons, it is indeed true that the same UN Convention on the Rights for the possibility of the expulsion of one or both parents (art. 9) but in a case such as the account of the motivation of such an act is very clearly the result of the long, legal and cultural, related to the Security Act.

Claiming that the right to education of a child can not be paramount in fulfilling the border security means to compare among themselves the questions of a different nature, without in any way consider the much larger size of the higher interest and the right to have a family of children, rights that can be denied only in cases of extreme gravity for the company and / or the protection of children themselves, which is not objectively the case of illegal immigrants, whose consequent crime (according to the Law on the security package) was just recently criticized by the UN Representative for Human Rights in Italy.

Italy, in this way is called out of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which also has ratified, does a piece after another, eroding the same legal culture that has instead helped to build over the years, internationally.

Now what? Of course, first of all explain, explain calmly and patiently. To everyone, first and foremost to the children themselves, more and more outcasts. And say children and not "foreign children" because the rights of the children of foreigners are EXACTLY the same as children of Italians!

But it is also necessary to mobilize, as they are doing at this time the major organizations dealing with child rights.

We want to remember that Italy, at this time, is under consideration by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (cycle through all the nations they are) and that the Italian Third Sector organizations have produced a independent report on the status of rights in our country (see website www.gruppoCRC.net). According to this report Italian organizations will be "heard" by the UN Committee in Geneva and certainly will not miss - Arciragazzi in the head - to denounce this latest act that distances us from respecting the rights of children.

But in the meantime, action is needed on the Italian front, with immediacy.

• Arciragazzi therefore calls for regional Ombudsmen for Children (National Ombudsman does not yet exist) to comment on this sentence *

• We also ask the Chairmen of the House and Senate to interest the relevant facilities ensure that the Law 176/91, by which the Parliament has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to be respected *

• We ask the Commission Bicameral Childhood to speak with clarity against this trend so clearly affecting the rights of children, their best interests and the right to have a family

• We ask the political forces greater wisdom, to read and study our own Read the first to comment

• ask the Judiciary to interpret the body of law uniquely: the decision of March 9, 2010 will spotlight literally one of the 10 January 2010, also of the First Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court . Clearly, the difficulty with choices immigration policies that deny a consolidated legal heritage, based on international cards. The CRC, however, as mentioned above, is from the '91 law of the Republic and stone foundation on which to articulate and defend in a cultural respect and dignity for all in this for the future.