Last week we considered The Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the religion of Humanism, a deceptive tool whereby carnal men convince themselves they are but animals.
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. This leads us to question who, or what, directs the UN.
If we also see that this philosophy 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 UN machine and one that certainly does not believe the philosophy it pretends. However, to deal adequately with who or what has the power to imprint this deformity on UN activities would tend to direct attention away from our subject, "The Convention on the Rights of the Child".
Today we'll examine the role of the twin movements of children's rights and children's liberation in furthering the goals of humanism, and paving the way for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We're working from the booklet by Robert Karolis, "The Making of a Deception".
The first National Conference on Children's Rights, held in London in 1972, promoted the controversial concept that children should have rights of their own as opposed to the traditional right to be protected by parents and adults.
The following bizarre statements are taken from a report of that conference entitled 'Rights of Children' published by the National Council for Civil Liberties:
"Professor Green advocates that children should be allowed to choose their own home and school, and when asked by a member of the audience when children should be allowed to vote with their feet, he said, 'As soon as they can walk!'
"You may say that such a choice is unrealistic, that our social system would collapse if children were allowed to opt between alternative households. All I can say is that if the present lunatic system manages to survive with a monumental toll on human suffering then any system can be made to work.' ...
"Am I, then, advocating that children should be allowed to choose the adults with whom to spend their domestic lives? Well, I won't pussy-foot around the issue. Yes, in principle, I AM putting forward precisely that proposal."
These are sentiments few people would have imagined they'd hear expressed by a sane human being. Whatever the professor's motives, he clearly wasn't out to win a popularity contest among parents. The thought of such a proposal becoming law would strike fear into the hearts of all responsible people.
Is it mere coincidence then, that this attack on the heart of parental authority is reflected in Articles 6 and 10 of the draft Convention on the Rights of the Child, presented by communist Poland to the UN in 1979 - the same draft that provided the basis for today's final product?
Article 6 states: Parents shall have the right to specify the place of the child's residence unless, guided by his best interests, a competent state organ is authorized, in accordance with national law, to decide in this matter.
Article 10: A child of preschool age shall not be separated from his parents with the exception for cases when such separation is necessary for the child's benefit.
Here we see, with less deception than in the final draft, the proposal that children be given the right to live other than at home with their parents. The basis for this right is nothing more than an arbitrary decision by a state organ that it's in a child's 'best interests'.
The term 'best interests', along with other motherly terms like 'well-being' and 'morals' are just three of many terms used deceptively in the Convention today.
They're used no less than fifteen times in the final draft, but don't try to find a meaning or definition for any of them within the pages of the Convention. You'll waste your time. Because the UN is using, to its advantage, the fact that these terms mean different things to different people. Most people will tend to relate them to traditional values and cultural norms but, once we know the humanist traditions of the UN, we know that's not what they mean.
In humanist terms, 'best interests' has a very different meaning. authorities won't admit what it is but children's liberationists will.
Richard Farson, children's rights advocate and guru amongst liberationists, like Professor Green, believes in getting to the point. In 1974, in his book 'Birthrights' he outlined fundamental rights that he believes all children should have. But before I list them, they need to be seen in light of the liberationists' attitude towards the concept of childhood itself.
Farson writes, 'Children did not always exist; they were invented. The idea of childhood is a European invention of the sixteenth century. Before the latter part of the Middle Ages there simply was no concept of childhood."...
Today we look at these little people around us and think we know what they are. '...
"We've named the little people 'children' and come to regard them as special. But childhood is not a natural state. Its a myth."
"Children became important as a result of the profound changes to our civilization surrounding the Reformation and Renaissance. It is not the new humanists, but the new moralists, mainly Jesuits, who came to see children as `fragile children of God who need to be both safeguarded and reformed'."...
"Whatever else may be wrong with a child, his fundamental disability is that he is a child. Compared to the overwhelming problems of being a child, almost everything else is less important. His behavior, his relations with others, his chance for happiness, ALL are determined for the most part by the socially- imposed limits of being a child. So whether we're interested in curing a child's `pathological' problem of hyperactivity or delinquency, or in achieving a child's higher potential for creativity or genius, the major barrier to overcome is the oppressive condition of childhood itself."
These statements speak for themselves. According to Farson, indeed according to the whole liberation movement, the best interests of the "little people" can only be achieved by removing from them the "oppressive condition" of adult-imposed childhood.
That means giving children freedom in the home and in society to do whatever adults have the right to do. This is the unstated meaning of the term 'best interests', and the unstated bottom line of the Convention.
Though Farson's arguments for the abolition of childhood will be seen by nearly everybody as preposterous, it should be realized that they are in accord with humanist philosophy and therefore in perfect harmony with the basic beliefs of all Australians who have fully embraced a humanist lifestyle.
The tragic irony of this is that most people don't realize it. In the same way they didn't realize it when manipulative forces were at work socializing Australia into discarding traditional male and female roles; into accepting and legitimizing prostitution, homosexuality, pornography, blasphemy, nudity, abortion, adultery etc. All these things, though abhorrent and considered evil in the past, are now, a natural part of the Australian way of life. Once intellectualized as 'liberation', and then legitimized in the name of "International Human Rights", Australians took to these changes long before they ever realized it, in perfect accord with their indoctrinated humanist beliefs.
So too will they take to the abolition of childhood, complete with all its consequences.
The task of the liberation and rights 'revolution' is, to entice them gradually, lest they take fright.
The Convention is presented deceptively - as a humanitarian document - a treaty for the protection of children. This is a simple but very effective misrepresentation. The Convention is not, even on the surface, about the protection of children but about protection of so called 'children's rights'.
The protection of children is and has been traditionally the duty and responsibility of parents and adults. It's this tradition that liberationists and rights advocates say is responsible for the 'oppression, abuse and exploitation' of children.
Thus they argue the need for children to have completely independent rights of their own; rights protected by law; rights that must, in the 'best interests' of the child, provide the child with the knowledge, experience and legal support to protect itself.
These are the conditions that advocates believe will bring about equality between parent and child; adult and child. In other words, conditions that will destroy the authority of parents and adults. It is because the public is not yet ready to embrace the prospect of this reality that the rights within the convention are cloaked in a web of deception. To see these rights in their original form we'll look once more to the shameless liberationists and Farson's ten point plan for the abolition of childhood.
All these rights have representation in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. (The following paraphrased version of Farson's 'Bill of Rights' is taken from Elise Boulding's book "Children's Rights and the Wheel of Life").
1. THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION. Children should have the right to decide the matters that affect them. This is the basic right upon which all others depend.
[Farson says "Children would, for example, have the right to exercise self-determination in decisions about eating, sleeping, playing, listening, reading, washing and dressing. They would have the right to choose their associates, the opportunity to decide what life's goals they wish to pursue, and the freedom to engage in whatever activities are permissible for adults.]
2. THE RIGHT TO ALTERNATIVE HOME ENVIRONMENTS. Self-determining children should be able to choose from among a variety of arrangements: residences operated by children, child exchange programs, twenty-four-hour child-care centres, and various kinds of school and employment opportunities.
3. THE RIGHT TO RESPONSIVE DESIGN. Society must accommodate itself to children's size and to their need for safe space. To keep them in their place, we now force children to cope with a world that is either not built to fit them or is actually designed against them.
4. THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION. A child must have the right to all information ordinarily available to adults - including and perhaps especially, information that makes adults uncomfortable.
5. THE RIGHT TO EDUCATE ONESELF. Children should be free to design their own education, choosing from among many options the kinds of learning experiences they want, including the option not to attend any kind of school.
6. THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT. Children should live free of physical threat from those who are larger and more powerful than they.
7. THE RIGHT TO SEXUAL FREEDOM. Children should have the right to conduct their sexual lives with no more restriction than adults. Sexual freedom for children must include the right to information about sex; the right to non-sexist education, and the right to all sexual activities that are legal among consenting adults.
8. THE RIGHT TO ECONOMIC POWER. Children should have the right to work, to acquire and manage money, to receive equal pay for equal work, to choose trade apprenticeship as an alternative to school, to gain promotion to leadership positions, to own property, to develop a credit record, to enter into binding contracts, to engage in enterprise, to obtain guaranteed support apart from the family, to achieve financial independence.
9. THE RIGHT TO POLITICAL POWER. Children should have the right to vote and be included in the decision-making process.
10. THE RIGHT TO JUSTICE. Children must have a guarantee of a fair trial with the due process of law, an advocate to protect their rights against the parents as well as the system, and a uniform standard of detention.
It would be fair to say, that were we to have any choice about it, few Australians would put the best interests of their children in the care of people who think like Farson. Unfortunately, since the convention is ratified, none of us has any choice about it. A vast Australian bureaucracy is, in accordance with international law and provisions within the Convention, set about systematically replacing the traditional concept of childhood with the humanist concept of 'equality'.
Thus far our primary purpose has been to reveal the humanist web of deception surrounding the Convention, but with humanism so much a part of our lives today there is genuine cause for concern that some people will be inclined to think, "Maybe things aren't that bad; there can't really be any ill intent meant; so many good people supporting the convention couldn't all be wrong".
Humanism is a progressive degeneration, and because it's happening gradually, we tend to adjust to each change as it happens. This being the case, we need to look to the future and the Convention's sinister implications before it's too late; before we've become adjusted to it.
Through what I believe to be a fortuitous miscalculation in the wording of Article 34, the framers of the Convention have given us the opportunity to see the extent of the degradation they intend for our children and society.
Consider for a moment that you were given the opportunity to frame a two or three sentence statement for the protection of children from prostitution, pornography and sexual activity in general. Would you have any trouble getting to the point? How long would it take you; a few minutes; half an hour? Maybe it would go something like this: "Children should be protected from all forms of inducement and coercion to engage in any form of sexual activity."
That took me no more than a few minutes to construct. Let's see what the UN took ten years to come up with, and why.
Article 34 of The Convention on the Rights of the Child:- "States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral, and multilateral measures to prevent:
(a) the inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
(b) the exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
(c) the exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and material.
Remembering the sleight of hand of the conjurer, did this article say what you think it said, or did it say something quite different?
Why does sub-article (a) qualify protection with the word 'unlawful'?
Why do sub-articles (b) and (c) refer specifically to 'exploitative' use of children and not 'use' of children, period?
Article 34 is offering children something, but it isn't what we're led to think it is.
Article 34(a) is concerned solely with unlawful sexual activity. It is not concerned with protecting children from sexual activity, per se. Articles 34(b) and (c) are concerned only with the 'exploitative' use of children in prostitution and pornography and not with their unexploited use.
In other words, if children enjoy prostituting themselves and taking part in pornographic performances, are rewarded adequately for it, and capable of making an informed decision to participate, they are, by definition, not being exploited. It is therefore the function of article 34 to provide that 'protection' through the provision of adequate knowledge and information, supported by a legal infrastructure that will guarantee children adequate payment and conditions.
This is a serious indictment against the activities of the UN; so serious and sickening that most people will not want to believe it's true. The evidence, however, cannot be ignored.
Below the level of general public awareness is a massive movement to 'liberate' our children sexually; a veritable fifth column of academics, writers, psychologists, counselors, therapists and paedophiles, all preoccupied with our children's sexuality. The store of published information is immense. It's vitally important for everybody to have some idea, at least, of what is going on but I will not quote such material on air. None of it is concerned by the activity (which it encourages), but by the exploitation.
Protection from sexual exploitation, we see, is not what normal decent people would think constitutes protection. In true humanist style, this is achieved by preparing the child for the sexual experience, however degenerate.
Looking into the foreseeable future, sickening and unacceptable though it is to most people today, as a direct consequence of the implementation of Article 34, child pornography and prostitution will be legitimized; parents will freely fornicate with their children and like it - believing it to be in their children's best interests.
Surely there can be no greater irony and cynicism than a document promoted and sold to the Australian public, predominantly on the basis that it will protect children and society from these evils, but which is actually designed to produce them.
This places a dark cloud over the integrity and intentions, not only of the UN, but also of those Australian institutions, particularly the State and Federal governments, which accomplished the unconstitutional ratification of this document.
If you feel alarmed at what has been discussed in this program, complaining to me or the network will not enlighten your ignorance of this UN Convention your government has signed. Be intelligent, and study The Convention on the Rights of the Child for yourself.
I have endeavored to demonstrate that the Convention is not the straightforward issue of children's rights its advocates make out. It's not as much an issue of rights as it is an issue of ideology.
In this sense it's a challenge to each one of us to identify, and reaffirm where our loyalties lie. If they lie with humanism then we need do nothing. There was enough corruption within each of the major political parties to ensure that the Convention was ratified the present corruption is sufficient to see it implemented.
If they do not lie with humanism, and the implications of the Convention horrify you, then there is hope for our children. Take the information presented here, consider it, confirm it, build upon it if you can, but don't tuck it away in the bottom drawer just to worry about it. The only way to counter deception is to expose it. radio056.html