The Convention on the Rights of the Child

The Making of a Deception

by Robert Karolis


It is not often that a small booklet is worthy of a foreword, however the importance of its message makes this booklet one of the 'biggest' stories of the century. I feel sure that anyone who has studied and gained a significant understanding of social justice would, like myself, be proud to contribute.

Obviously I agree with the contents; if I wanted to be 'nit-picking' I could say that I might like to alter an occasional shade of expression but what author would not say as much even about his own finished work. My one regret is not with what is written but with what has, in common sense, to be left out.

The author makes an essential point in bringing out the philosophy directing United Nations' activities (how can we judge the real purpose of any law or social document if we do not know the philosophy behind its conception—words are only the containers for ideas). Therefore it is unfortunate that the false nature of UN philosophy could not also be covered.

If a person believes in creation by chance evolution: that life has no meaning and that there are no truths or moral imperatives, then that person has no logical motive for multi-generation planning. The person who believes in 'survival of the fittest' and that all motivation is selfish, does not want to devote time and energy to a 'new world order' or to creating a slave state that will not be to his own benefit. In fact, to a person of such belief, the main benefit of social activity would be to convince others that there IS a God—convince others that they should be generous to each other in order that he may more easily take advantage of them than would be possible if all followed the selfish path.

However, this question leads to the question of who, or what, directs the UN. Once we see that UN activity is directed to serve a religious design we must wonder just how that design could have become part of an organization representing many religions?

If we also see that the philosophy itself is a manipulated concoction of artificial values and emotional idealism, then we can be sure that there is planning behind the scenes.

There is indeed a 'ghost' in the United Nations machine and one that certainly does not believe the philosophy it pretends. However, to deal adequately with this would tend to direct attention away from the most important subject, 'The Convention on the Rights of the Child'.

So why bring it up at all? If UN activity is directed to serve a devious design (and Mr. Karolis shows it so) then, if not told WHO or WHAT has the power to imprint this deformity on UN activities, a reader may feel that something important is missing.

You will find that reading this booklet makes great demands on your ability to be honest in your appraisal of the evidence offered. You will be challenged by the evidence of deceit. You will need to be alertly aware of the importance of finding and understanding the truth of United Nations conventions such as that labeled 'Rights of the Child'.

So, although the matter of who, or what, controls the United Nations organization cannot be adequately dealt with in this booklet, it is important the reader know that the matter was not overlooked. Mr. Karolis did not write his book in ignorance of this and other books already provide information.

I cannot tell you that this is a pleasant booklet as most will find it distressing, but every person honestly concerned for the welfare of children must be grateful to have in hand details of a snare that is set for the heart.

Alan Gourley.


The Convention on the Rights of the Child is popularly promoted as a 'treaty for the protection of children'.

This is a cynical misrepresentation of the facts. The Convention is actually designed to undermine and destroy all legitimate rights children have to the protection of parents and adults.

'Childhood', which provides the conceptual basis for this protection, will be replaced by a concept of 'equality' between parents/adults and children.

Australia signed the Convention on the 22nd August, 1990 and is now preparing to ratify and use it as basis for Australian law.

The process of ratification will once again signal a commitment by Australian federal and state politicians to implement and impose foreign laws upon Australians.

The Australian Constitution does not provide them with this authority. It is the function of Australian parliaments to determine Australian laws in strict accordance with the will of the Australian people.

It is not their function to be used by political parties for the purpose of adopting foreign laws determined by a non-elected political consortium.

This is high treason!

Treason plus the Convention on the Rights of the Child equals the making of one of the most vile and despicable deceptions ever perpetrated on humankind.

The Power of Deception:

'Deception', according to the Oxford Universal Dictionary, is the action of causing "to believe what is false".

Because it is impossible to believe both the falsehood and truth, those who accept the 'protection' lie may now be thinking: "How preposterous for somebody to suggest that childhood could be destroyed. No-one would want to do anything like that. It just couldn't happen". Yet, in reality, it is already happening. Under the banner of children's liberation it has been happening for at least twenty years.

The last twenty years have seen dramatic changes take place in adult perception of childhood as well as adult attitudes toward children and vice versa. The sharp line that marked the division between the concept of adulthood and childhood has become blurred, to say the least, by the "notion of equality".

"Raising children has always been based on the tradition of the autocratic system, the superiority of the parent over the child", comments Professor Maurice Balson of Monash University in the Daily Mirror, 23/8/89. The Mirror goes on to say "But in the 1970s things changed and that system gave way to a more democratic one. New values emerged, including "the notion of equality. . ." Emphasis added.

Today parents pander to their children; playing child games with them, talking and relating to them as equals; dressing them as if they are seductive little adults. Children in turn fail to comprehend the concept of respect. Instead, it seems they look upon their parents and adults as big children.

The blurring of the demarcation line between adulthood and childhood is seen as many different things or the product of many different causes: children growing up faster; being better educated; a changing world; more enlightened parents etc., but rarely is it seen for what it really is: a symptom of the destruction of childhood.

Such is the power of deception.

Like the sleight of hand of the conjurer who leads us to think he holds an orange in his right hand when he really holds it in his left' we are being led to believe one thing is happening whilst, in reality, something quite different is being planned.

The destruction of childhood is happening right in front of our eyes. We are witnessing it, but because it is being induced within a web of deception we are failing to relate what we are witnessing to the deliberate destruction of childhood. It is axiomatic that deceived people do not know they are being deceived. The deceptive strategy being employed in the destruction of childhood is calculated to ensure that parents will accept, if not openly welcome and embrace the resultant degeneration of their children.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is a significant part of this strategy. The purpose of this study is to look closely at the deceptive nature of the Convention and expose its sinister purpose and intent.

We will begin by taking an 'investigative journey', so to speak, behind the scenes of the Convention in order to see how this gigantic hoax has been put together. We will look at humanism, the religious foundations upon which the United Nations and its concept of human fights are structured. We will look at the humanist movements, children's rights/liberation and see how they have underpinned the push for the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the destruction of childhood. Then, to illustrate the sinister intentions behind the document, we will focus on Article 34 to discover that its real purpose is, contrary to all appearances, to legitimize and encourage child pornography, child prostitution, and incest.


Have you ever stopped to wonder about the underlying belief system of the United Nations? What ideology—religious persuasion—motivated it to conceive the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and drives it continually to enforce its principles upon all peoples and nations of the world?

Chances are you haven't. It seems such an obscure and irrelevant consideration. But it isn't! Whether we realize it or not, everything of significance we think and do is predicated upon, as well as determined by, our basic origin beliefs. We are all continually striving to live in accord with that which we believe to be our origins, i.e., where we came from and what we are.

Moslems have their basic beliefs, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus theirs. Christians understand their origins to be the result of purposeful creation by God.

But what of the United Nations?

The United Nations' Office of Public Information states in its 1978 edition of "The United Nations and Human Rights" that the root of its concern with human rights and fundamental freedoms" . . . may be traced to the humanist traditions of the Renaissance". This is quite a candid admission from an organization that makes every. effort to appear secular, without any religious bias. For there is no doubt that humanism is a religion in every sense of the word.

So what sort of religion is it? What does it teach and how prevalent is it?

The Clayton's Religion:

Humanism is the Clayton's religion; the religion you have when you say you are not having a religion.

Or, put another way, it is the religion you have that you don't know you have. It is simply a belief about living in accordance with one's feelings and emotions, unfettered by considerations of the mind. Therefore it rejects all teachings that endeavor to build concepts and spiritual ideals upon moral foundations.

Christianity is one such teaching and, because of its past prominence in the Western world, it has been an anathema to the growth and development of humanism for nearly 2,000 years.

Christianity and humanism are conflicting ideological forces. Therefore they cannot co-exist in harmony. As a society endeavors to live in accord with its basic beliefs it nurtures a culture that both reflects and protects those beliefs.

Christianity has not been an exception. Its culture has been enshrined for generations in tradition and law—much of which is still held in high regard today—a situation that inhibits the overt growth and dominance of humanism.

For this reason humanism is romantically represented in the revolutionary mold; as the oppressed seeking free expression and liberation from religions, i.e., Christian constraints. In this sense then humanism is as much a political movement directed towards the destruction of our Christian culture with its tradition and law as it is a religious ideology encouraging the worship of feelings and emotions. Bear this in mind as we consider what the humanists themselves have to say.

The Humanist Manifesto II:

The following extracts are from what is known as 'The Humanist Manifesto II'—a document that first appeared in the 'Humanist' Sept/Oct. 1973, New York. Humanist Manifesto I was publicly released in 1933.

"As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism [that is, belief in God], especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and take care of persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith.

"Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival".

In all fairness, humanists, like everybody else, have, and should have the free-will to believe or disbelieve whatever they choose. That's their business. But it becomes our business when they work deceptively to impose those beliefs on us and our children. Remember it is upon these arguments that the traditions of the United Nations are founded—arguments that reject the existence of God.

God's existence, according to humanists, hasn't been proven. How then do these "reasonable" minds account for human existence?

"Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the 'ghost in the machine' and the "separable soul". Rather science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces."

Clearly then, to humanists we are the product of an unknown number of mutations—chance evolution. Consequently, we exist by accident and lack any separable soul that will continue beyond the death of our bodies.

So What Does That Make Us?

"As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context."

There we have it. According to humanist reason we are a biological organism—an animal. No more. No less. This is not an unreasonable assumption for anyone who accepts evolution theory as fact. But that also means we are not human because it is those non-animal spiritual qualities of consciousness that make us human.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

It will be realized that the term 'humanism', though deliberately misleading in its suggestion of concern for humanity, was appropriately selected. The 'ism' on the end means 'like human' but not 'human'.

I do not wish here to enter the evolution versus creation debate, but it must be said that for a body of thought to reject the existence of God because mere mortal scientists cannot prove He exists is naive to say the least; particularly when that body of thought predicates its belief system on a theory that cannot be proven by those whose judgment they value so highly. Humanists reject the existence of God because they can't prove He exists, yet they teach faith in a theory that has no basis in scientific fact. What hypocrisy!

Darwin, in his twilight days, admitted that there was no evidence to support the theory that any one species has evolved into another. In October, 1980 at the Chicago Conference one hundred and sixty of the world's leading scientists and evolutionists were forced to admit that fossil evidence did not support Darwinian evolution.

But humanists want to deny the existence of God and encourage unrestrained expression of animal feelings and emotions. In this much they need an origin belief to support their teachings. Evolution theory appears tailor-made to serve that purpose.

It is reasonable to expect then that those who promote a religion based on the belief that humans are really no more than animals would seek to eliminate, from each of us, those spiritual and intellectual qualities that give us the edge over our bestial counterparts and encourage us instead to live and behave like mindless animals.

In so much that Christianity provides a reason and purpose for physical and emotional constraint—a buffer, as it were, between moral decency and unfettered animal behavior, or worse, unbridled intellectualized depravity—it should come as no surprise that humanism is diametrically opposed to Christian morality and ethics. Quote from Humanist Manifesto II:

"We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stem from human need and interest."

If It Feels Good Do It

In practical terms they are saying: there is no God to determine what is morally right to do in any particular situation; and because of this there are no absolute truths. Thus be guided by your animal needs and interests, (remember we are not human) i.e., your feelings and emotions; if it feels good do it; if it seems right to you, it's all right for you.

To normal, healthy minds the implications of this form of reverse morality may not be immediately apparent. Say, for example, a man wanted to have sex with a two year old girl, it would be his humanist right to do so. If the child approved, that's fine. If she did not approve humanism will resolve the dilemma by teaching the child to like it.

Note for example that the Federation of Parents & Citizens Associations of N.S.W. has a 'health' policy requiring that children as young as two be given sex instruction.

Consider another example of humanist morality. An eighteen year-old boy, stressed by the pressure of exams, is contemplating suicide. According to humanist teachings he would be morally right, and should have the right, to terminate his life if he so chose.

"To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties... which includes the right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide."

So much for the humanist traditions of the United Nations and the Convention on the Rights of the child. In a moment we will look at two political forces of humanism—the twin movements of children's rights/liberation. But first a few words should be said about the extent to which humanism pervades and influences Australian society today.

There's A Lot Of Claytons Going Around:

Humanism is not a theoretical concept invented by an international organization just to keep parents and Christians on their toes. Its presence is disturbingly real in every area of Australian society. In most, its influence reigns supreme.

Nowhere is this more visibly evident than in the schools—those so-called bastions of enlightenment that are supposed to reflect the beliefs, cultural values and ideals of our society.

Before the first weeks of school are up, the little five and six year olds will have been systematically weaned on pictures of dinosaurs and evolution theory. Then, before they can barely hold a pencil they are put through values clarification processes to be taught that it's O.K. to reject whatever traditional moral values their parents are teaching them.

From then on, up until the time they leave school, they will have been confronted with situation ethics, (For a Christian this sounds like blasphemy, but the Talmud has a teaching called "hora'ath she' ah," which means that a special dispensation can be given to meet the requirement of the moment. It is from this teaching the Christians were polluted in the 1960's with the theology known as "situation ethics."), death education, suicide education, drug education, assertiveness training, pornography, sex instruction on how to masturbate, fornicate, and engage in homosexual acts. and even in some schools, incest and bestiality; witchcraft, protective behaviors programs, alternative family lifestyles, abortion, AIDS education and so on.

The relevance of these humanist teachings are affirmed in the child's mind by the world outside school.

Live For The Feeling:

At home parents put their children in front of the television to experience a humanist world of sex, violence, corruption, drugs, perversion, prostitution, materialism, self-indulgence, fantasy and, all the while, the ads blare out 'share the feeling, get that feeling, live for the feeling'—a theme persistent throughout modern music, movies, magazines, novels etc. Everywhere we are being enticed to feel. Not think, just feel.

On the streets children are greeted by glorified images of naked women posing brazenly—pornographically—on newsagents' posters, enticing passers-by to 'share that feeling'.

They go to the movies to see their heroes live 'free-spirited' lives of unrestrained passion to 'share that feeling'. And to rock concerts to listen to rock music and get that feeling'. They go to the beach to bare their bodies and look at the bodies of others, nude or near nude—to 'live for that feeling and get that feeling'. Or to the discos to dance and 'get that feeling, express that feeling'. To amusement parks with their big slippery dips and roller-coasters to 'live that feeling, get that feeling'. To sports events to 'share that feeling'.

In today's modern, hedonistic society the emphasis is on the pursuit of personal pleasure—fun; the fulfillment of feelings and emotions. This is what we and our society are teaching our children.

Ask any child today what they thought of this or that and their answer will be in crass terms of fun or boredom.

Adults too, now live for entertainment, pleasure, expression of their feelings and emotions even though most of the time it is vicariously in front of the television or video, with the radio, a magazine or novel. And we encourage these same selfish physical pursuits in our children from the earliest possible ages.

In humanist terms we live for 'the here and now'. After all, evolution decrees here today gone tomorrow. So why restrain out feelings? Deny ourselves pleasure? Suppress our emotions? Live and die without having experienced all the wild imaginings of our minds—most of which, it must be said, are artificially inspired by the media and entertainment industries?

These are just some of the physical manifestations of humanism and whether we like to admit it or not, humanism has taken over our culture. Yes. we can still appreciate the virtues of God's Commandments—in theory—as we witness our traditional moral order crumbling around us. Some still manage a soft spot in their hearts for Jesus Christ the Son of God. Old habits and beliefs die hard. But life after death does seem so far away from the 'here and now'.

Australians, young and old, are chasing humanist rainbows and embracing the New Age with open arms, oblivious of the religion within that embrace and its implications.

But the promoters of humanism know that once people accept a basic belief, they are bound to conform to the logic of that belief, sooner or later, or suffer the confusion of having to reject it altogether.

This brings us to the role that the twin movements of children's rights/liberation have played in furthering the goals of humanism and paving the way for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Their purpose, as we shall see, is simply to affirm the logical consequences of humanist belief. right1.htm

.../Next Page

.../Back to Index