Chapter 3.

The U.N.O. v The People (Part 3)

The Good Parent?

Can any parent be a good parent under the new 'Human Rights' laws?

You are no doubt aware that parental chastisement of children is already unlawful in some countries; they want our children rebellious and selfish. But did you know that being kind to your children may also be treated as a crime?

The following item appeared in the Queensland Sunday Mail (17/6/1984).

Child of 'Too Good' Father Put in Home

"SYDNEY.—The New South Wales Government has put a three-year-old girl into a foster home because her father spoiled her too much.

The list of the father's faults, according to public servants, included not imposing enough strict discipline, arguing with hired nannies about the girl's bedtime and not sending her to kindergarten.

The N.S.W. Youth and Community Services Department has told the father he can see his daughter once every three months for the next two years."

Of course this was not widely publicized. Horrific new bureaucratic powers have to be brought into effect gradually so as not to alarm people. We should nevertheless realize that, once we have laws which are open to the interpretation of public servants, then the public have no rights and become scorned and abused by the servants.

The despotism of petty officials given power is further indicated by an item headed "Father forced to Adopt His Son" (Sydney Sunday Telegraph 19-8-1984):

In this case an infant's mother died and the father re-married, the new wife raising the boy as her son. When the second wife wanted to will her estate to the boy, endless red tape and petty interference by the Department of Youth and Community Services eventually forced the man to adopt his own son.

The foster mother was told that before she could make a will in favour of the boy and other possible children, she would have to adopt the boy who would have to be informed of the plan and of his natural mother's death (the boy had not been told this because of a sensitive emotional problem).

The family spent what they could on legal action and sought the aid of their M.P., but all pleas to allow the adoption to proceed fell on deaf ears.

". . . an officer from the department made visits to our home to question our lifestyle and to assure himself that Viki was a fit and proper mother for David.

"He even wanted to know if I played golf on weekends and demanded to know our every interest in life."

"Finally, the department advised us that if we would not explain everything to David we would have to get medical evidence to support our argument.

"Our Dr. provided us with a letter stating clearly that David could not cope emotionally with being told.

"But this was rejected and after much soul searching we had to relent."

Even after subjecting the boy to this unnecessary (and possibly harmful) trauma the department was still not satisfied but demanded to be allowed to see the boy alone for half an hour to determine what he had been told.

Only after bowing to these demeaning and arrogant demands was the adoption finally allowed. Obviously bureaucratic interference is not governed by any concern for the welfare of children or society.

Compare the items above with the fact that photographs seized by police on a drugs raid which showed a one-year-old baby being given a puff of a marijuana cigarette, playing among marijuana leaves and holding a marijuana pipe—warrant no action.

As reported in The Australian 29/12/'84:

"Police said the woman appeared to be a very good mother in every other way ... she just had a few bent ideas."

Is Crime Protected by 'human rights'?

Do drug addicts get preferential treatment as customers of the world's most profitable industry? By now we all must know about the curious leniency shown drug traffickers in Australia and the mysterious release of heroin dealer Peter Fulcher whose freedom was arranged by the Federal Government courtesy Senator Gareth Evans and quietly authorized a day or two before the 1984 Federal election.

Comment from Editorial The Australian (29/12/'84):

"What is clear is that intervention by the executive arm of government has overridden the judicial process, and without explanation. This is a fundamental breach of the separation of powers enshrined in the democratic ethos and cannot go unquestioned."

"cannot go unquestioned."?? Has it ever been questioned? Nothing like a sick joke at a funeral.

Public disquiet brought about by demands from the New Zealand Police appears to have caused some double-dealing and the man was later re-arrested. This action apparently satisfied everybody while explaining nothing. There has been no insistent questioning and certainly no answers.

A letter from H.A. Wallace The Australian 29/12/'84, sums it up rather well:

"Given the power and resources of governments compared with the paucity of their efforts to hit the heroin trade ... the only logical explanation of their failure to take the more effective courses of action is that persons in positions of high influence within governments have been corruptly influenced by some of the very many millions of graft dollars with which the heroin trade ensures its freedom to operate unhindered.

"All Australians who have any pretensions to personal integrity and/or concern for the current and future welfare of their children and grandchildren should join together and very loudly point out to individual politicians that the logical implication of the patently inadequate government action is that individual influential government members and/or political parties have been paid to give the heroin trade the protection it is very obviously getting.

"Such statements of probability will be died but the simple answer is that the only realistic proof of their innocence lies in the publicly observable effort and effectiveness of their collective and individual actions to stop the heroin trade with the same determination with which a hardware merchant was fined $500,000 and bankrupted for trading after hours."

Neither denial nor publicity was given the Wallace comment. Discrepancies, discrepancies; the person inflicting crippling injury and death to children often gets bail and light sentence while the person committing a civic offense may well be hounded and financially destroyed. But then we must realize that the drug dealer (with a little help from the pushers, the encouragement of educators, and free publicity from mass media) is 'helping children to achieve their full potential' and their 'Human Rights' to decide for themselves just how they will live—or destroy—themselves.

I have yet to hear of a mother not on drugs who gives her baby freedom of choice between nourishing food and poison. The sad thing about these United Nations sponsored 'human rights' is that they give no right of protection against confidence tricksters and 'peer group' pressures. Socialist 'Human Rights' recognize no such human right as the right to benefit from past human experience and mistake, the kind of human rights provided by good parents and protective education.

Australian Family Law Courts operate on a system of "no fault". No fault of course means "no justice" and this is the only Australian public institution that has generated the kind of bomb threats and violence common in so many other countries. As law becomes more arbitrary at the hands of arrogant 'public servants' and peace-keepers more corrupt, frustration and violence will become more common.

Now an example of internationalist bureaucracy from Stockholm. (Reported `Daily Mirror' 16/8/1984):

"Dad Whacks Boy—Cops a Caning!"

"Niklas took his punishment—two strokes of a willow branch—after he was warned repeatedly about taking his baby brother for street rides on the carrier of his bike."

The boy reported his father. The father was fined $15.

At time of writing this 'Human Rights' law was not being enforced in Australia but we are subject to many hundreds of U.N. agreements and there are increasing pressures from the humanist 'little gods' to 'ban the cane' and all forms of responsible guidance.

We have to keep reminding ourselves that all this is not something that began yesterday, but is a situation that has been encouraged and developed over many years. The influence of the United Nations is comparatively recent but, because of the groundwork already prepared, the poison of the U.N. permeates every nook and cranny of our culture. From the United States:

Senator MacGibbon attended the U.N. General Assembly (Sept.'83—Dec.'83) and said of it: "Scandalous, inefficient, wasteful and hopeless." He added:

"Hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars have been wasted because the correct research has not gone into a project. They are often selected on political or emotional grounds and what should be a $5 million project ends up a $50 million one often of no use to anyone." ...

"When 40 K.G.B.operatives were expelled from France three were on the UNESCO staff and eight with the Russian legation. So there were eleven out of forty agents actively involved with UNESCO. And the three KGB agents expelled were actually given a pay rise and are still on the UNESCO payroll."

Sex Discrimination??

Typical of the new laws able to be imposed because of our ignorance are those related to (so called) sex discrimination. Much of this legislation, as is usual with legislation dictated by compliance with U.N. agreements, bypasses the common law system under which a person is innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. People accused under these U.N. inspired laws or regulations may be hauled up before a commissioner who has the power to deny them the right to be legally represented.

Lauchlan Chipman, visiting Professor of Jurisprudence at Sydney University, warns us that:

"It is important to recognize that this is not a conference presided over by a magistrate or a judge, but a conference presided over by someone who is, quite literally, a zealot."

"It would be naive to expect an impartial inquiry." He warns: "There are many analogies between the growing powers of the Human Rights Commission, The Guardians of Plato's Republic, the People's Courts of the Chinese cultural revolution and the Thought Police of Orwell's 1984."

The Union of National Deceit.

These bureaucrats have already the powers of inquisition and trials by inquisition can be carried out secretly without publication of evidence.

Only a few examples of the evidence and consequences of our being tangled into the U.N. web can be given here. We may have been fooled by early pronouncements into thinking that the U.N. was a benevolent institution but these early pronouncements were designed to lull us into a false sense of security. For example: Article 17 of the Human Rights declaration of 1948 says:

1. Everyone has the right to own property ...

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

However the more recent U.N. Habitat Conference included in its preamble:

"Private land ownership is a principal instrument of accumulating wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."

As a matter of fact, quite a few people in Australia have been arbitrarily deprived of some very valuable property over the last few years. This injustice is still unknown to the general public, but the power is there and already being used. If the wealthy cannot protect themselves what chance for you and me.

Destruction of family legal and property rights has gone far beyond what is at present enforced or of which the public is aware, but probably even more blatant has been the destruction of our economic wealth.

Much was made of New Zealand's extraordinary indebtedness during recent N.Z. elections but strangely no one seemed concerned that Australian international debt was even larger. News reports told that every four N.Z. people (man, woman and child) owed $17,000 in national debts. For Australians (1984) the figure (reported quietly) was $20,000 for four people. No less than 52% of our export earnings was said to go to pay interest to overseas financiers.

That was at the date of this book's first edition, eighteen months later our debt has doubled. This debt has mainly come into being since 1970 when it was only $3.5 billion. In the present situation there is no end within our ability to pay. Australia is now debt-ridden.

If anyone believes that the political connivance between the Australian political parties and the U.N. organization, International Banking, and Humanist Philosophy, is not designed to bankrupt Australia and Australians socially, morally and economically, then:

a) it is only because they are ignorant of the available evidence. Or,

b) that they are so stuffed up with self importance that they prefer to sacrifice their children than to face honestly the facts.

Question: At the height of the famine in communist Ethiopia why did the U.N. vote $73 million for an unnecessary conference centre in Addis Ababa and why did Australia abstain from voting when Australians were being begged for money to help feed starving Ethiopians? Can it possibly be made more clear than that. The U.N. calls the communist tune and the democracies pay the fiddler (fiddle)? Our pockets are double dipped, first to pay the greater part of U.N extravagances to the benefit of socialist bureaucracies, and then again to try to repair the damage that U.N. socialism (with the help of our money) inflicts on a long suffering world. avoid17.htm

.../Next Page

.../Back to Contents Page