The Convention on the Rights of the Child

The Making of a Deception

by Robert Karolis

3. ARTICLE 34.

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 is happening gradually, bit by bit, we tend to adjust to each change as it happens the best way we can.

This being the case we need to look into the future to see one of the Convention's sinister implications before it's too late; before we have 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 United Nations 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, full stop?

'Exploitation'

Article 34 is offering children something but it isn't what we are led to think it is.

Literally, and this is not a matter of interpretation, 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 un-exploited 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 United Nations; 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 there 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 following references from their work does not even scratch the surface of this movement. The store of published information is immense. Yet it is vitally important for everybody to have some idea, at least, of what is going on.

The quotes tell their own tale of degeneration and need little additional comment.

THE READER IS WARNED,

SOME OF THE FOLLOWING REFERENCES COULD POSSIBLY OFFEND.

F.M. Martinson, Professor of Sociology, Gustavus Adolphus College, Minnesota, to the annual meeting of the Midwest Sociological Society, April 1979:

"What is new about the children's rights/liberation movement is its advocacy for the protection of children's rights. These rights extend to the rights of sexual freedom and include the child's right to all information about sex that adults have access to.

"The capacity for affectional-erotic sensate pleasuring in childhood has been well documented. The central question for this paper is: does the more open affectional-erotic freedom in our society today embrace (1) autoerotic sexplay of the child, (2) sexplay of children with one another and (3) sex play of children with adults as valid sexual activity?

"Child sexuality appears to be the last area of sexuality to be considered for the lifting of societal sanctions. We have been slow in extending the principle of egalitarianism to encompass chronological age, age being perhaps the last major ascribed barrier to equality.

Defence for Children International, National Secretariat of Non-Governmental Organizations that worked on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Quote taken from D.C.I.'s own publication: the International Children's Rights Monitor. Vol. 1, No.2 1983:

"Many of the issues arising from the consideration of the sexuality of children and young people, are fundamental to approaches to children's rights...

The Monitor felt it useful to set out the major difficulties to be confronted and resolved from a `rights' standpoint... 1) ensuring that children and young people have the 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."

You see, they are not concerned by the activity (indeed they wish to encourage it) but by the exploitation.

Elise Boulding, author `Children's Rights and the Wheel of Life':

"At the other extreme there is the children's sexual liberation movement, as represented for example by the Paedophile Information Exchange in England, which exists to promote autonomous sexual relationships between children, and between children and adults. Adults on either side of this issue are opposed to [listen to this] the sexual exploitation of children by adults . . ." [Once again the concern is not with the adult/child activity but with exploitation.]

"Some children's rights advocates agree with the paedophile movement that sex between children and sex between children and adults can be liberating".

* * * * *

Official Journal of the Incest Survivors Association, Western Australian Spring Edition. Year unknown.

"Most paedophiles are gentle creatures. They cherish tenderness and innocence, and will back off from fear and resistance in their intended partners."

"The various aspects of guilt and betrayal are potentiated both by increasing sophistication in the subject and by guilt and ambivalence perceived in the parents. If the active sexual agent (father) and especially the non-participating adult (mother) are comfortable with the incestuous relationship, harm to the child is decreased. Some authors contend that incest within an endorsing family can be non traumatic or even beneficial to the child's emotional growth. Such findings may seem at first paradoxical (sic.) and outrageous but if valid they reinforce the original premise that incest can be a natural phenomenon and that taboos and conflicts are socially imposed.

"The ambiguity of the clinical literature leads to ambiguity of social response. Although all states now have child abuse laws requiring reporting of sexual abuse, a federally sponsored Child Abuse Intervention Prescriptive Package states that there is neither sufficient evidence of harm nor sufficient optimism for treatment to justify legal intervention in intrafamily sexual abuse."

* * * * *

Dr. Carolyn L. Symonds, Director and counselor at the Centre for Counseling and Therapy, Santa Cruz, California. Chapter 12 'Children and Sex' by Larry Constantine and Floyd Martinson:

"If our study does nothing else, it shows the dangers of generalizing about incest... But if we were to generalize from this study, we should say that... erotic feelings do exist among children reared together, and sexual relations with siblings or other close relatives can provide a satisfactory method for children to satisfy their initial sexual curiosity. Contact between parents and children can sometimes offer the child a well-rounded introduction to sexual functioning in a secure and non threatening environment. Respondents claimed no difficulty in the maintenance of social order or discipline in the family.

"We would consider hypothesizing that the abhorrence of contact with kin is strictly a social prohibition that has little to do with practice. It may have been a taboo in the past, when inbreeding could not otherwise be avoided, but with the advent of birth control the situation has changed and sexual contact is recognized as desirable for reasons other than procreation.. . where incestuous relations do not do harm and have some positive aspects for those involved, the taboo should be played down rather than built up."

* * * * *

Larry L. Constantine, formerly Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. Quote is from a paper presented to the conference 'Children and Sexuality; University of Quebec, Montreal, Sept 79.

"A similar definition is offered by Schechter and Roberge who favour the term sexual exploitation involving dependent, developmentally immature children and adolescents in sexual activities they do not fully comprehend, are unable to give informed consent to, and that violate the social taboos and family roles.'

"... legitimate sexual experiences are therefore ones (1) in which the child is sexually knowledgeable and fully comprehends the activity, (2) to which he or she freely consents on the basis of that comprehension, (3) that takes place in a family, and/or social setting that affirms such sexual experiences as appropriate."

Protection from sexual exploitation, we see, is not what normal decent people would think constitutes protection. Instead, in true humanist style, it is achieved by preparing the child for the sexual experience, however degenerate.

The same author at The International Conference on Love & Attraction, University College Swansea, Wales. quote:

"Were the sexual rights of children to be vigorously defended, pornography using children would undoubtedly continue, but its production could made more accessible to policing. Child actors in legitimate media are protected by the scrutiny made possible in a legal industry in which rights to participate are recognized; if it were legal to produce and sell pornography, children who do not wish to participate could be better protected from exploitation at the hands of parents and other adults. The extremes of exploitation, kidnapping, rape, and other excesses of the pornographer using children are at the present time products of the illegality of the enterprise. It might show more concern for children to permit some children to participate willingly in pornography under monitorable conditions, than to have others brutally exploited became of their status as runaways or mere chattels of their parents." Emphasis Added.

CONCLUSION.

Looking ahead then 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 display of 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, actually designed to produce them.

This places a dark cloud over the integrity and intentions, not only of the United Nations, but also of those Australian institutions, particularly the State and Federal governments, which are working towards the unconstitutional ratification of this document.

I have endeavored to demonstrate that the Convention is not the straightforward issue of children's rights that advocates make out. It is not as much an issue of rights as it is an issue of ideology.

In this sense it is a challenge to each of us to identify, reaffirm, if you like, where our loyalties lie. If they lie with humanism then we need do nothing. There is enough corruption within each of the major political parties to ensure that the Convention will be ratified and 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.

It is proposed that further information on this subject will be prepared and published.