ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, February 27, 1997 TAG: 9702270002
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
Don't destroy the past; learn from it
IN RESPONSE to the Feb. 9 news article, ``Symbols of Old South split races'':
I believe the symbols represent not only the heritage and culture of the South, but represent history as well.
Should we tear down symbols of the struggles that eventually liberated the many black slaves?
Tearing down these symbols would be similar to closing down all Holocaust museums and concentration camps that are open to visitors. To do so would be to take away part of history, no matter how awful that time was.
Therefore, the question isn't about whose heritage we're celebrating, but is this: How much of our history are we willing to forgo to revisionists who would rather attempt to eliminate unpleasant history than draw valuable lessons from it?
KELLY SEATON
BLACKSBURG
Some do honor our kids' arts
IN RESPONSE to Kathleen M. Neff's Feb. 4 letter to the editor, ``Kids who excel in arts are ignored'':
My family and I enjoyed quite the opposite experience recently. We attended a national Parent-Teacher Association Reflections Contest reception at Northside High School. My youngest child placed first in her school and second in Roanoke County in the music category.
The reception recognized all first-, second- and third-place winners, as well as honorable-mention award winners. Those students received certificates and ribbons.
The first-place winners in literature and music performed their winning entries.
Refreshments were served and the students' art work, photographs, music and literature were displayed in the lobby. My family and I felt this was a very appropriate way to acknowledge the children's hard work and talent.
It's a shame Neff couldn't have had the same experience. I understand her concern and disappointment.
BONNIE W. APGAR
ROANOKE
That was one stunning picture
A TIP of the hat to your photographer Don Petersen for his excellent front-page weather picture on Feb. 15, ``Don't fence me in.''
In many, many years of newspapering, dating back to the venerable speed graphic, nothing quite as visually stunning ever crossed my desk. This one should be blown up, framed and hung in a prominent place.
Petersen should win all kinds of accolades from his fellow press photographers.
LOREN R. CRAFT
ROANOKE
U.N. treaty would override Va. law
RETIRED TEACHER Elizabeth Fetter (Feb. 13 letter to the editor, ``Parental rights are not threatened'') disputes my assertions that if the U.S. Senate ratifies the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child, it would ban spanking in the United States. She made two points:
The convention doesn't ban spanking. Even if it does, ``there are no sanctions for noncompliance."
Her response indicates a lack of knowledge of the relevant facts as well as the applicable law.
First the facts: This convention (treaty) creates a 10-member tribunal called the ``Committee on the Rights of the Child.'' According to an American Bar Association book (supporting this treaty), this committee is ``the authoritative source'' to ``interpret the text'' of the treaty.
In January 1995, this U.N. tribunal issued a decision concerning the meaning of the treaty in a review of British law to see if Great Britain complied with the treaty. This tribunal said: ``The Committee recommends that physical punishment of children in families be prohibited in light of the provisions laid down in Article 3 and 19 of the Convention.''
The U.N. agency, with the authority to interpret the treaty, says it bans ``physical punishment of children in families.'' Fetter's assertions to the contrary are simply in error.
She also misunderstands the nature of our constitutional system when she asserts that there are ``no sanctions for noncompliance.'' While the U.N. may be powerless to impose meaningful sanctions on the United States, that doesn't mean that the treaty's provisions are unenforceable.
If the treaty is ratified under the Constitution's supremacy clause, it becomes part of the body of law, which is ``the highest law of the land.'' The treaty would override any state law or state constitutional provision to the contrary.
Accordingly, Virginia's current law that permits modest spanking by parents would be unconstitutional by the concurrent operation of the supremacy clause and this treaty - if it is ratified.
MICHAEL FARRIS
President, Home School
Legal Defense Association
PURCELLVILLE
LENGTH: Medium: 97 linesby CNB