The U.N.O. v The People (Part 2)

(R. Karolis, cont.)

Proposed Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Most people cannot believe that the MP's they elect act deliberately against their interests. As a result politicians will enact laws directed to making the State the legal custodians of our children. This will be done within the framework of a new U.N. convention proposed in 1978.

This convention, now in its final stages of preparation, was submitted before the United Nations General Assembly by the communist dictatorship of Poland. It is known as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. If you think we don't have any control over our children now, just wait till you start seeing billboards on every street, and TV advertisements every night imploring your child to know his rights. And then feel the weight of your local school teacher, ombudsman and political feminists vying to assist your child, by law, to achieve those 'rights'.

You don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to know that you cannot give a child 'rights' without taking away the corresponding 'rights' from the parents. Every right taken away from the parents becomes a right bequeathed to the child from the State. The State then, automatically, becomes custodian of the child.

Although this convention is not yet finalized and adopted by the General Assembly, it is nonetheless an integral part of the UNO strategy of promoting a concept of pagan rights in such as to make them appear acceptable to the public and have them enforced with state laws.

Human Rights - Basis for the New Religion.

Two of Australia's many Marxist academics praised the U.N. for its achievements at a UNESCO seminar held at the University of Sydney in June 1980. Eugene Kamenka of the Australian National University and Alice Erh-Soon Tay of the University of Sydney, made this comment in a joint message to the seminar:

"...there can be no doubt that the U.N. has played an enormous role since 1945 in publicizing and promoting a conception of human rights as fundamental to social life and political government, and in seeking to have them recognized in international covenants and conventions."

A remarkable achievement indeed. And what is more remarkable is how they achieved it when few people at the time felt any need for 'human rights'. Even Labor-leaning academic lawyer, Geoffrey Sawer, admitted in 1946, saying:

"There is probably no country in the world in which Human Rights, whether of individuals or groups, are more extensively or better protected than they are in the Commonwealth of Australia ...

"... Australians have never felt the need to express in formal documents the fundamental human rights which their system of government in fact protects. The expressions 'constitutional guarantee' and 'fundamental rights' are unfamiliar to most Australians." Geoffrey Sawer, Yearbook on Human Rights, 1946. (E.A.)

The signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, by the then Labor Government, was in contravention of s116 which prohibits Commonwealth Governments from establishing a religion. This U.N. Declaration was nothing less than a religious proclamation. By signing it the secular authorities were agreeing to its principles as being superior to the existing Christian principles; thereby committing Australian Governments to establishing and enforcing pagan religious concepts in opposition to Christianity. I believe that makes all governments since 1945 guilty of TREASON.

However, what was poison to Christians was elixir to all anti-Christian subversives—political feminists, homosexual activists, socialists, Marxists, communists and trendy liberals. Now they could all come out and claim for themselves rights under the banner of the UN Declaration. They were no longer to be considered unhealthy deviants in a Christian society but moral leaders in an anti-Christ world.

The Atheist proclamation gave respectability to every human weakness: laziness, greed, power, hate, jealousy, etc. It gave status to every human desire and perversion, calling on every sexually frustrated moral pervert and mental deviate, to come out and proclaim the new religion.

But most of all it gave unity and common purpose to all atheist activists. It called on them to establish their Messiah, through the U.N., as ruler of an atheist world.

If only Christians had half the motivation of these misguided fools! As it is, driven by their own individual brands of perversion, they have become efficient little workers for the U.N.. They have achieved, for their master, what apathetic Christians only dream of achieving. And to what extent they are prepared to go to achieve their ends is glimpsed in the government-backed feminist activities. Today, in 1984, we have deranged people claiming the right for adults to molest children in the name of children's liberation. THE U.N. PLANNED IT THAT WAY 39 YEARS AGO.

The Framing of a Confidence Trick.

From the September 1983 Edition of NGO/Forum, the official Non-Governmental Organizations/UNICEF Newsletter, we see that the promotional campaigns underway by people like Leahy, Scutt, Nugent, aim to create AN APPEARANCE of social conditions favourable for our governments to ratify and implement laws associated with the proposed 'Convention on the Rights of the Child'.

Also, the extracts will familiarize you with a hitherto well hidden side to UNICEF. I quote:

"An informal consultation group of International NGOs has just completed a critical review of the draft conventions [Rights of the Child] articles. That is significant progress; it brings closer to the finishing line one of the convention's most difficult stages—wording—so that the protagonists can move to the next crucial stage, that of selling the product to governments for ratification. . .

".. there will always be some nit-picking—somebody seeking for one reason or the other to modify the recommended texts. Therefore texts themselves must aim as high as possible, making demands for the protection of children which look quite idealistic. But despite this—in fact because of it—the whole document must be presented in an `attractive package'.

"The INGO representatives seemed keenly conscious that the lobbying was an essential half of their mission and that therefore, 'like poets, they must seek to enter into some kind of sympathetic contract' with their targeted readers, namely their own boards, the UN Working Group itself, the national NGOs, especially those with influence in parliaments and above all, governments."

Note the secretive 'confidence trick' attitude and that the general public is not a target for consideration. They control us through our governments!

Then, in support of the need for a convention to supplant the Universal Declaration on the Rights of the Child (made in 1959) for something with 'more substance' than the declaration; they say:

"...For a declaration does not enjoy the juridical rigor and force of a convention, whose word carries much weight amongst state/parties to the convention."

Note this next quote and remember the sort of people involved:

"At any rate, it stands to reason that rights must exist on paper before their sponsors and custodians can monitor, fight for, demand and wrest them from those who would trample them underfoot."

"...rights must exist on paper before their sponsors and custodians ..."

Who are the sponsors and custodians of these so called 'rights'? The UN and its atheist army. Why do they have to exist on paper? Because they did not exist before some socialist committee invented them!

"..fight for, demand, and wrest them ..." Fight for, demand and wrest, what? Control of our children.

"..from those who would trample them underfoot." Who are trampling children's rights underfoot?

Surely not THEY. Not the pedophiles and 'gays' who want to 'liberate' our infants and children so they can play their sick little games with them.

Not the feminists who would seek to protect them from the patriarchal family by giving them to the State.

And not the UN and its atheist army that has worked relentlessly to destroy the value of freedom in what is, or was, a beautiful world.

No, none of those, they are the self acclaimed 'sponsors and custodians' of rights, it is YOU and I who are the accused. The husbands, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers; WE are the ones targeted for extinction because we place God before state, freedom before slavery, right before wrong, and intelligence before stupidity.

Concerned people must ask WHY has the government not brought this to our attention? WHY has organized religion not come out in condemnation?


Articles from the revised draft of the original communist proposal presented to the Human Rights Division of the Office of the United Nations in Geneva on the 5th October 1979 by the Permanent Representative of the Polish Peoples Republic. Text from the United Nations Economic and Social Council document -E/CN. 4/1349, 10th October 1979.

Article 6

The parents shall have the right to specify the place of the child's residence unless, guided by his best interests, state organ is authorized, in accordance with national law, to decide in this matter.

Article 26

The state parties to the present Convention shall enable the child who is capable of forming his own views the right to express his opinion in matters concerning his own person, and in particular [but not only], marriage, choice of occupation, medical treatment, education and recreation.

Article 10

A child of pre-school age shall not be separated from his parents, with the exception for cases when such separation is necessary for the child's benefit.

Article 17

1) The States parties to the present Convention recognizing that the bringing up and education of the child should promote the full development of his personality, his respect for human rights [U.N. style] and fundamental freedoms [U.N. style].

2) The child shall be prepared for an individual life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, tolerance and friendship among all peoples, ethnic and religious groups and educated in harmony with the principles of peace proclaimed by the United Nations.

Article 18

The child shall have full opportunity for recreation and amusement appropriate to his age. The parents and other persons responsible for the care of the child, educational institutions and State organs shall be obliged to implement this right.


Article 6 of the revised Polish draft clearly gives state bureaucrats the authority and the obligation, not only to decide the child's 'best interests', but also its place of residence. Try to find anywhere in the 28 articles of the draft a definition of what constitutes the 'best interests' of the child and you won't find one. Do not presume that your understanding of the child's best interests corresponds with that of the promoters of this convention.

Deny your child full pagan (satanic) potentiality; teach him values based on truth and intelligence and you [they will charge] are acting against his 'best interests'.

Article 7 of the revised Polish draft will ensure that your child, no matter what age, just as long as he has an opinion, wrong or right, will have the law behind him to act contrary to the wishes of his parents.

Article 17 echoes the sentiments of article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 13 paragraph (i) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and relates them specifically to the child. It leaves no doubt as to the obligations of ratifying state authorities. Children must be brainwashed to the dogma of the atheists' gospel.

The 'principles of peace' referred to in paragraph (2) once fully implemented will ensure that the world accepts the U.N. as supreme ruler of the world. History and geography will be revised to destroy truth and facilitate the aspirations of this perverse organization.

Article 18 directs intrusion into the private affairs of the family ensures that no child escapes the pagan (satanic) customs and rituals promoted by the establishment through TV, pop music, drugs, orgies etc,.

From just these 4 articles it is clear that the proposed convention is nothing less than a blueprint for dictatorship of the world. Control the children and you control the world.

As UNICEF spokesman, Philip Ochieng, points out in the September '83 edition of NGO/Forum:

"the texts themselves must aim as high as possible, making demands for the protection of children which look quite idealistic."

It is itself an indictment against the integrity, honesty and intentions of those associated with the production of an international convention that they should seek to 'market' it. Fortunately we have access to the revised Polish draft. There is no doubt that this document too was attractively packaged to the best of Poland's ability. Nonetheless the message still comes through loud and clear—"raise your children according to the wishes of the state authorities or else the state authorities will take them away from you."

[Since the first edition of this book legislation has been introduced in N.S.W. giving the State that power.]

Coming from a dictatorial regime it must have been a simple exercise. No doubt the Polish authorities would have received a pat on the head from the elitist rulers of the U.N. and a round of cheers from the Marxist representatives posing as the U.N. Working Group formulating the final draft. There is no recognizable justification for adopting the convention beyond its obvious dictatorial aim.

If the proposed convention is meant for the 'protection' of children why is this not explicit in the revised draft?

Defence for Children International (DCI). Secretariat and influential member of the INGOs working on the draft makes this revealing comment in Vol.1 No.1 of the International Children's Rights Monitor:

"One of the most striking features of the basic draft of the Convention as submitted by Poland is the total absence of any specific reference to the concept of child abuse and neglect. Not only is this surprising but, worse, it constitutes a step backwards in international provisions to protect the child, ..."

Child abuse and neglect (care of the feminists) provides them with the sweetener they feel will give credibility and justification for including the provisions of these two articles; articles that give the state power to take our children from us.

Decide for yourself if the problem of child abuse would not best be solved by eliminating the influence of subversives working to undermine the natural family.

Articles 17 & 18, innocuous as they may seem to some in a humanist world, do no less than give the establishment the power to decide and enforce the morality, behaviour and education of our children contrary to the wishes of the parents.

In case there exists any doubt in your mind between the relationship of the Children's Rights Convention and the promotion of child sexuality, DCI makes the connection quite clear in the second edition of the Monitor.

From the article headed An International Focus on Adolescent Sexuality, quote:

"Many of the issues arising from the consideration of the sexuality of children and young people are fundamental to approaches to children's rights, and involve questions that are far from drawing a united response, not only in society but also those involved in child welfare.

"Taking its cue from a report on an international seminar on this topic, the Monitor felt it useful to set out the major difficulties to be confronted and resolved from a 'rights' standpoint. This is surely the essential first step—but only the first step—towards three aims:

"1. Ensuring that children and young people have a right to express their sexuality.

"2. Ensuring their access to knowledge and conditions of life that enable them to cope with the consequences of their sexuality.

"3. Ensuring that they are protected from exploitation of their sexuality."

* * *

Article 17 will [also] ensure that the 'principles of peace' too frequently and so righteously proclaimed by the U.N., will be a legal obligation of state authorities. The 'principles of peace' are enshrined in two basic concepts guaranteed to give the U.N. absolute control of the world: 'international disarmament' and 'educating for peace'.

* * *

The Final Document of Assembly Session on Disarmament (May 23 - July 1; 1978) Paragraph 110:

"Progress in disarmament should be accompanied by measures to strengthen institutions for maintaining peace and the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. During and after the implementation of the program and complete disarmament, there should be taken, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter, the necessary measures to maintain international peace and security, including the obligation of the states to place at the disposal of the United Nations agreed manpower necessary for an international peace force to be equipped with agreed types of armaments. Arrangements for the use of this force should ensure that the United Nations can effectively deter or suppress any use of arms in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

In other words, everybody give your armaments to me, I'll look after you. [Naturally, despite peace education, I'll need an army to do it; A.G.].

Re-writing History!!

From the 13th Recommendation of the Final Report of the (wait for it) Intergovernmental Conference on Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, with a View to Developing a Climate of Opinion Favourable to the Strengthening of Security and Disarmament; (phew) held at UNESCO House 12-20/4/'83.

"The Intergovernmental Conference recommends that all Member States, in the context of their current constitutional provisions;

"redouble their efforts and intensify their studies with a view to improving and revising the content of school text books, teaching aids and all teaching materials in accordance with the principles stated in the 1974 Recommendation Concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education Relating to Human Rights[U.N. style] and Fundamental Freedoms [U.N. style],

"encourage the revision of not only history and geography textbooks books but also other school textbooks such as those used for civic education, foreign languages and literature,

"take steps to encourage the elimination from textbooks of anything liable to give rise to misunderstanding, mistrust, racism, contempt or hatred with regard to other groups or peoples so as to provide pupils with a view that is comprehensive, scientifically based and as objective as possible of the economic, social, political and spiritual history of mankind and of contemporary life, ...

"encourage international co-operation among the authors of school textbooks, publishers and pedagogues,

"encourage bilateral meetings between experts in the countries concerned with the revision of textbooks and teaching materials, particularly on the subject of history, and distribute the findings of these consultations to a wider audience,"

And so on, and so on, and so on. These are just from the 13th of 21 long-winded recommendations.

Robert Karolis.

* * *


U.N. sponsored freedoms and rights are always qualified to the discretion of the State. They have it as policy to re-write history and school text books to suit their plans i.e. 'he who controls the past controls the future'. How do governments use the powers they accept?

Article 9 speaks to protect the child against harmful influence from mass media but our government gives open house to the most incredibly depraved and harmful video pornography. Two 1984 examples:

Item from Victoria:

Jesuit Brother Alex in an open letter to Senator Evans challenged Evans to do the rounds with him and promised Evans it would be an experience he would never forget.

Society/Governments, Alex says, "have made kids a punching bag." He doubts that even two out of some 140 of the kids his team is trying to help will ever be straightened out to a healthy norm. "Some of the kids are just crushed. They have no spirit, no life .. they cringe in abject fear of humanity."

"How will you protect your own children, Senator?" asks Brother Alex.

Item from South Australia:

The South Australian Government has just passed a bill which makes it illegal to "make remarks with sexual connotations" in the workplace. At the same time it is trying to push through a bill which will allow children, of any age, to be exposed to violent and pornographic videos. avoid16.htm

.../Next Page

.../Back to Contents Page