On the Occasion of the 35th Anniversary of the Adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child
By: Dr. Nasser Yousefi
Approximately 35 years ago, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (United Nations, 1989). This convention was the result of more than a decade of specialized efforts by a large group of child rights activists, lawyers, and child development experts. Their goal was to highlight the necessity of recognizing children’s rights as citizens of every society at both national and international levels. The adoption of this convention by UN member states was a significant human achievement. In the same year, the UN Secretary-General urged governments to sign the convention and commit to implementing its provisions for the benefit of children in their respective societies.
Before the CRC, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child was introduced in 1959 in the United Nations with ten principles. (United Nations, 1959) However, this declaration was merely a recommendation, and countries were not legally bound to implement it. In contrast, the CRC introduced a binding legal framework, compelling governments to implement its provisions and ensuring international enforcement. However, after thirty years, it remains a question of how effectively the convention has been enforced and to what extent member states and signatories have fulfilled their commitments. Some countries never signed the convention, while others accepted it with conditions. Even among those that fully ratified the CRC, it is worth investigating how much effort they have truly put into improving children’s rights in their societies.
One of the most important aspects of the CRC is its comprehensive approach to children’s needs, ensuring that no need is overlooked. It emphasizes that all children’s needs must be addressed simultaneously, creating conditions for them to enjoy a dignified life. These needs are not limited to basics such as food, water, and shelter; the quality of these necessities is equally important. The CRC highlights the significance of providing high-quality healthcare, education, and nutrition programs, ensuring that children have access to the best possible resources for a dignified life. Therefore, governments cannot merely claim to have programs for children’s healthcare, nutrition, education, or legal and social rights. What matters is the quality of these programs and their alignment with international standards.
Although the concept of quality is always relative—meaning that what is considered good depends on the society and its conditions—there is still a need for clear standards, indicators, and principles to assess children’s rights. The evaluation of a country’s child rights situation should be based on statistical data aligned with these indicators and international standards. Simply labeling a country’s child rights status as good or bad without a scientific and detailed approach is not a reliable assessment. Even when comparing children’s well-being across nations, it is evident that in many countries, including wealthy ones, there is still a significant gap between children’s living conditions and international standards.
This is why one of UNICEF’s strategies is to have government and non-government experts assess the state of children in each country every decade, measuring their well-being against global standards. Examining the situation of children in a country like Canada—or any other nation—is crucial. Such an analysis helps evaluate children’s conditions more accurately and compare them with international benchmarks.
However, just as important as assessing the current state of children’s rights is defining an ideal vision for their future. Governments must outline their long-term goals for improving children’s lives and develop strategies that engage various governmental, non-governmental, and civil society organizations in achieving these objectives. If a government can effectively integrate child rights protection into its national policies, it can serve as a model for other countries.
In the modern era, the importance of children’s holistic development has gained significant recognition. Scientific research, particularly in the fields of child development and neuroscience, has shown that from birth, children require structured care, support, and planning to thrive. Therefore, implementing the CRC’s principles at the national level requires comprehensive planning. (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [NINDS], 2024)
Now, 35 years after the adoption of the CRC, and with the vast scientific advancements underscoring the importance of child development, governments must voluntarily prioritize children’s rights in their national programs. The step-by-step implementation of the CRC in every society should be treated as a fundamental investment in the future. Encouraging governments to view child rights as a long-term national investment is a crucial discussion that should be widely promoted as a key policy proposal. By doing so, a country can position itself as a child-friendly nation, playing a vital role in the global community.
Becoming a “child-friendly country” undoubtedly requires significant economic, social, cultural, and even political infrastructure. Such a nation must ensure fair and equitable living conditions for all children within its borders, without discrimination.
Among the member states of the United Nations, it seems that no country has yet prioritized children’s lives and their best interests in planning programs. However, this does not mean that no country has the potential to do so. Rather, it appears that a political and social consensus is needed at the level of policymakers and citizens.
Is it an unrealistic or overly ambitious expectation for a country to place children’s welfare, rights, and a dignified life at the forefront of its agenda? Can a government or a country be encouraged to take on this responsibility in the global community? Is this expectation too far-fetched for a society?
Global experiences have shown that when children in a country live well, the future of that society is also promising. Research has demonstrated that investing in children’s healthcare, education, and welfare is, in every respect, an economic investment for that nation. (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [OHCHR], 2024), (Fernandes, L., 2024)
Around the world, some countries have taken various approaches to supporting the holistic development of children and have achieved significant results. The statistics from some nations, as recorded in UNICEF’s annual reports on the state of children, are very encouraging and can be recognized as achievements in children’s rights. Some of these global accomplishments include vaccination rates above 90%, universal health insurance for children from birth, minimizing child mortality under the age of five, and significantly reducing malnutrition rates. (United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF], 2024)
This suggests that some countries have the potential to become child-friendly nations by prioritizing children’s needs in their planning. These countries must be identified, and their officials should be encouraged to take on this responsibility.
Undoubtedly, one country that has the potential to emerge as a child-friendly nation on the global stage is Canada.
Canada was one of the first countries to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991 and has consistently been an advocate for the convention. Additionally, Canada has signed two optional protocols: The Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (United Nations, 2000) and The Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children (United Nations, 2000).
The laws, initiatives, and programs supporting children in Canada are valuable and significant. The overall well-being of children in Canadian society is noteworthy. Most importantly, the general public in Canada believes that children’s rights are upheld and that their well-being is ensured. When the citizens of a country believe that their children’s rights are protected and that national institutions are focused on their development, this belief becomes a strong foundation for further progress.
Can Canada take on new responsibilities as a child-friendly country? Can it become a leading nation in championing children’s rights and creating new opportunities for children and families?
To establish Canada as a child-friendly country, a well-planned strategy is needed. A coordinated effort between various sectors can lead to the development of a draft proposal to present to decision-making bodies.
Organizations such as the Ministry of Children, in collaboration with institutions working in healthcare, nutrition, education, welfare, and justice, along with international organizations like UNICEF and a large network of civil and non-governmental organizations, can review and assess this responsibility.
The draft proposal can include the following elements:
- Current Situation Analysis: Conducting a comprehensive study on the status of children in all aspects of life in Canada.
- Vision for the Future: Creating a roadmap for an ideal future for children in Canada. This vision can be shaped through consultations with various groups and partners using brainstorming sessions, future studies, and strategic foresight programs.
- Children’s Information Center: Establishing a center dedicated to documenting and categorizing all activities related to children, including policies, projects, ideas, challenges, and organizations working at different levels in Canada. This center can serve as a vast database of all projects benefiting children in Canada, making this information accessible to interested groups worldwide.
- National Council for Children’s Rights: Forming a council with decision-making authorities to act as a strategic and policy-making body for essential programs supporting children.
- 10% Improvement Commitment: As a child-friendly country, Canada can commit to improving children’s conditions by at least 10% in each period. For instance, if 17% of children are currently experiencing malnutrition according to official statistics, efforts can be made to reduce this figure by 10% in each designated timeframe. This approach can be applied to all aspects of children’s well-being.
Potential Benefits of a Child-Friendly Country
The designation of a child-friendly country can offer several advantages:
- Enhanced Family Security: Parents in Canada would feel a greater sense of security knowing that extensive governmental support programs are in place for their children. This would improve the overall well-being of citizens, as child security contributes to parents’ peace of mind.
- Economic Growth: Investing in children leads to economic prosperity. Families are willing to spend on their children’s development and well-being, which in turn creates new job opportunities in education, healthcare, services, production, and industry.
- Academic and Research Advancements: Canadian universities and research centers can specialize in various fields related to children, such as pediatrics, psychology, children’s literature, and early childhood development (ECD). This specialization can attract students and researchers from around the world.
- Becoming a Global Hub for Children’s Initiatives: Canada can become a center for international child-focused activities, from films and books to the production of specialized children’s equipment. This would make Canada a focal point for conferences and global gatherings related to children’s issues.
- Boosting Family Tourism: The initiative could also enhance family tourism by attracting families from different countries to visit Canada.
In conclusion, the designation of a child-friendly country is not only an opportunity to enhance the overall well-being of society and support children’s mental and emotional health but also a means to drive economic and social progress at national and international levels. Canada possesses all the necessary qualities to assume a new global role as a child-friendly nation.
Conclusion
A key aspect of the CRC is its holistic approach, emphasizing not just basic needs like food and shelter but also the quality of healthcare, education, and social services. Governments must not only provide these services but ensure they meet international standards. Reliable assessment tools, such as UNICEF’s decade-based evaluations, help measure children’s well-being, yet many nations still fall short of their commitments.
The text argues that Canada has the potential to become a global leader as a “Child-Friendly Country.” As an early signatory of the CRC and a strong advocate for children’s rights, Canada already has valuable policies in place. To further this role, a comprehensive strategy is needed, including:
Establishing a National Council for Children’s Rights
Creating a Children’s Information Center
Committing to incremental improvements (e.g., reducing child malnutrition by 10% per cycle)
Aligning child-focused policies with economic and social growth
By prioritizing children’s well-being, Canada can enhance family security, economic development, and global leadership in child welfare. The initiative could position Canada as a center for research, education, and international collaborations, fostering both social progress and economic opportunities.
Ultimately, investing in children is an investment in a nation’s future. Canada has the resources, public support, and policy framework to lead by example, setting a new global standard for child-focused governance.
Reference
Fernandes, L. (2024). The economics of human development: ‘Investing in children’ or ‘children as an investment’? And why it matters. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241268126
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. (2024). Reflecting on 2024: Advancing neuroscience research to improve neurological health. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.ninds.nih.gov/news-events/directors-messages/all-directors-messages/reflecting-2024-advancing-neuroscience-research-improve-neurological-health
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2021). UNICEF Global Forum for Children and Youth (CY21). United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2021/12/unicef-global-forum-children-and-youth-cy21
United Nations. (1959). Declaration of the Rights of the Child. https://www.childlineindia.org/pdf/Declaration%20of%20the%20Rights%20of%20the%20Child-1959.pdf
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child
United Nations. (2000). Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/optional-protocol-convention-rights-child-involvement-children
United Nations. (2000). Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/optional-protocol-convention-rights-child-sale-children-child
United Nations Children’s Fund. (2024). The State of the World’s Children 2024: The future of childhood in a changing world. https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-of-worlds-children/2024
Thank you for this inspirational contribution Nasser. As you have shared previously, Canada is falling behind other developed nations with respect to several indicators including child-poverty, youth suicide, sense of safety, malnutrition, etc. As a psychologist, I am particularly concerned about mental health issues. Haidt and Lukianoff state that Wokism operates like a kind of reverse CBT by relying on emotional reasoning, promoting safetyism to the point of calling the expression of alternate views “violence,” calling those who do not actively support one’s worldview “micro-aggressors,” and by generating fear of other people, particularly white “heteronormatives.” These developments were precursored by dependence on social media in girls and a video culture escapism in boys. I wonder to what degree these developments have affected child well-being in Canada. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Dear Dr. Robertson
Thank you very much for sharing your concerns about the mental and emotional state of today’s youth. Undoubtedly, your attention to the psychological well-being of future generations reflects a deep and genuine commitment to the health of our society.
That said, from the perspective of the humanistic approach that I follow in alternative schools and educational activities, I believe that the child or adolescent flourishes best within an environment of inner freedom, psychological safety, and creative self-expression.
I view movements such as the “woke culture” not as threats to resilience, but rather as attempts to heal historical wounds and build a more just and compassionate society. For children who have experienced discrimination, poverty, or neglect, being accepted, heard, and understood is an essential step in their psychological and social recovery.
At the same time, I agree with you that fostering coping skills, cultivating a sense of responsibility, and nurturing healthy communication must be integral parts of education. However, I believe these aims are not in conflict with kindness, empathy, and the appreciation of diversity.
In my own work with children in crisis-affected areas, I have witnessed how resilience does not diminish—but instead grows deeper and healthier—when children are allowed to express themselves, engage with play, music, nature, and human connection.
Since you are a humanistic psychologist and philosopher—and I, too, am a committed advocate of humanistic education—I’d like to share an additional thought. Many of today’s widely used therapeutic approaches, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), tend to focus on correcting beliefs, controlling negative thoughts, and teaching mental techniques. While such methods may offer short-term relief in acute situations, they often fall short in addressing the deeper layers of the human psyche: lived experience, meaning, unconditional acceptance, and human connection.
CBT, at times, treats the individual as a system to be reprogrammed—as if changing thoughts will fix everything. But in the philosophy of humanism, we believe that a human being is not merely a “thinking machine.” A person is a living being with emotional depth, memory, longing, spirituality, and the need to be seen and valued.
Children—especially in today’s high-pressure world—need more than cognitive tools. They need nonjudgmental affection, opportunities to play, express themselves through art, connect with nature, and simply be heard. Sometimes, instead of “fixing thoughts,” we must learn how to “sit with feelings.”
Therapeutic and educational systems that are overly focused on control, correction, or adapting children to a fixed model risk straying from the path of raising free, creative, and peace-minded individuals.
Thank you for prompting thoughtful reflection and dialogue through your writing. Perhaps the differences in our views are not obstacles, but rather invitations—to deeper conversations about what today’s humanity truly needs: the courage to understand one another, not just to resist change.
With respect and hope for continued dialogue,
Nasser Yousefi
Thank you for your comments Dr. Yousefi. I support and appreciate your concern for our children. We must ask ourselves why their well-being, as measured by UN agencies, is falling behind other developed nations. To solve a problem we must understand what caused the problem and that involves cognitive processes. While I agree with you that emotional well-being is important, fundamental to Enlightenment Humanism is the understanding that humans, as opposed to deities, have the capacity to approximate objective reality and we do it using science and reason.
Most mental health disorders are problems of emotional regulation. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has a proven track record in fighting clinical depression. Greg Lukianoff, in a book he co-authored with Jonathon Haidt, described his own fight with depression using CBT during the early part of the last decade. He successfully learned to deal with his illness by recognizing and countering “self-talk” involving catastrophizing, black-and-white thinking, fortune telling, and emotional reasoning that had kept his depression in place. He then returned to his university to discover that a new political movement that engages in cancel culture, safetyism, black and white thinking, and emotional reasoning had become prominent. He concluded that this “reverse CBT” was making students less healthy and my question to you was whether you thought that this could be a factor in the apparent regression of Canadian children and youth. If not, what are the factors contributing to this result in your opinion?
I agree with you that the people engaged in this 21st century phenomena, sometimes refered to as “Woke Identitarians” because of their reliance on identity politics, are generally well-intentioned. But good intentions based on a faulty perception of reality can bring dire results. An article I co-authored with Edan Tasca of the Centre for Inquiry Canada, describes how the Wokists frequently achieve the opposite of their stated goals. See: https://www.humanisticallyspeaking.org/post/woke-ironies-achieving-the-opposite-of-its-stated-goals
Finally, I am sure that you did not intent to slur practitioners of CBT by suggesting that they sometimes attempt to program their clients. The word “programming” implies that some practitioners are not working transparently and cooperatively with their clients and the ethics of our profession enforced by licensing bodies prohibit such practices. I was recently interviewed by Scott Jacobsen where we discussed these and related issues: https://afurtherinquiry.substack.com/p/how-does-culture-shape-who-you-are.
Best wishes in humanism, Lloyd
I have been advocating for the idea of child-friendly communities for many years. In some societies, I have seen the positive changes that occur when people, civil society organizations, academics, members of parliament, and government institutions come together to support children.
I’m glad that Canada was one of the first countries to recognize the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Now, 35 years later, it must play its role as a leading country in advancing and expanding children’s rights.
The important question is: how can we encourage Canadian policymakers and decision-makers to prioritize the best interests of children in their agendas? What are the parliamentary and legal pathways to promote this idea?
Vida Heidari
Art Educator
Hi Dr. Yousefi, Dr. Robertson, and Mrs. Heidari,
The strengths of the article are the humanistic and rounded view of the whole child: basic needs, dignity, emotions, rights, well-being. The rhetorical switch to practical policy orientation is a strength. The grounding in neuroscience and developmental psychology, certainly, sits more empirically with a humanistic tradition. 10% improvement can mean a lot, particularly when millions of children are taken into account. An addition of a National Council for Children’s Rights and a Children’s Information Center can be helpful, though such an effort could be a combined institute or agency to reduce bureaucratic cost. As long as we keep things within international norms, we aren’t rejecting the world and maintaining a reputation within the international community as legitimate, serious, and viable. The emphasis on civil society collaboration with government is well-worn, as per Civil Society Organizations working with government agencies. A more precise emphasis could work on child poverty rates, youth suicide statistics, and Indigenous child welfare disparities, while incorporating some of the notes of Dr. Robertson. The use of common terms in contemporary resources, academically and colloquially, can help identify some buffers to child welfare within and produced by the culture itself. That’s in the culture in some progressive over-reaches through potential self-retraumatization, setting back our collective culture aims here. Institutionally, financial barriers and logistical hurdles are likely to become issues, even ideological opposition. More grounding in realism will be a strength, not a weakness here. This proposal could be furthered with future articles on children with disabilities, immigrant and racialized families–not everyone experiences these as burdens, but, for those who do, then considerate proposals may be welcome. Your work is visionary. It is well-articulated. I see this as an introductory step for organizational coalitions to come together and approach the Government of Canada with concrete proposals.
To Dr. Robertson (May 16, 2025): I have received concerned correspondence about these aspects of contemporary culture. I see two reactions. One is denialism. Another is overblown commentary. The indicators of child poverty, youth suicide, malnutrition, and sense of safety, would be helpful. Wokeism, as framed, is an issue. Some intended meanings, tending to be primary and original definitions, are unproblematic. I allude to internal issues in the country worsening progress. The other intended meaning would be one. Culture wars in Canada is rising, not nearly to the extent in the United States. I have been expanding into more expansive interviews in business, entrepreneurship, finance, technology, and trade, globally. A common assumption is business loves stability. My thought is progress, as per the above-mentioned metrics, loves stability too. These internal cultural tensions–’culture wars’–can slow progress of material wellbeing, at least. Although, material wellbeing isn’t the fuller meaning of wellbeing. Enlightenment-grounded humanism is an answer, a strong solutions-based lens, and complementary to extant others.
To Dr. Nasser Yousefi (May 17, 2025): I would emphasize, at a minimum, a duality in intended meanings behind “woke culture” as it’s more than one item. Enlightenment-humanism would put an acute focus on the intention to heal, while seeing if the advertisement matches the results of the product: in this case, woke culture. In the older meaning, which is still in existence and still used, the intention seems to align with results. In some evolutions of meaning, Dr. Robertson’s point, it may be functionally deleterious in spite of intended meaning. Intentions matters only if sufficiently coupled with results. I am saying, “You’re both right and talking past one another.” Resilience is multivariate trait or a complex virtue. I agree with this, strongly.
To Lloyd Robertson (May 18, 2025): The re-emphasis on CBT seems warranted, as the evidence, according to experts, supports this methodology strongly, while Dr. Yousefi’s point about expansion of the image is warranted as meaning, connection, and so on, build into resilience too. It’s a feature, not a bug, to add to the commentary, to me. You point out the same split in different language between intention and results.
To Mrs. Vida Heidari (May 21, 2025): I like the idea of child-friendly communities, particularly from real-world experience. The collaborative work between civil society an government with the addition of academic institutions is more than warranted. Which leads to the question, how do we bring this effectively to the attention of Prime Minister Carney for legal and parliamentary mechanisms to make some concrete efforts, while balancing the prior commentary? I would argue the most effective mechanism is the way post-secondary institutions do this through the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations among others. They build larger coalitions and then lobby the Government of Canada. Occasionally, they get big wins after a lot of failures.