With all the energy and fervor worthy of a better cause, so-called "children's rights" activists have worked to have their radical agenda transformed into public law in the United States. They have had only a limited amount of success until a recently revitalized United Nations hammered together a ruse called, "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child" (CRC). This treaty, which is gaining support in the U.S. Senate, is fast becoming international law, and will give the global child snatchers the power they failed to achieve on the national level.
It would be well for all to consider what the "Convention on the Rights of the Child" would mean in the United States. When we hear about "treaties" or "conventions" we do not normally think of something that will impact us directly. This is why the Convention has steamed along with little opposition - because a treaty seems benign. What few people realize is that treaties are the supreme law of the land - higher than state and federal law and the U.S. Constitution. John Foster Dulles described it perfectly in 1952 in a speech before the American Bar Association where he said,
Treaties make international law and they also make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are, indeed, more supreme than ordinary laws , for congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights."
This legal precedent was established by the Supreme Court in Missouri v. Holland.
It would be well for all to consider the implications of this Convention that is about to become "supreme law of the land", and is already ratified by 187 countries as of last April. It is poised for ratification in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the form of SR70, and, when it passes, parents may be very surprised at how this new law will impact their family directly. Most parents may not notice much because the State is already raising their children for them, but the few parents who are endeavoring to train their children to be strong pillars of virtue and independent thought have every reason to be concerned.
Many of this Convention's provisions seem non-offensive and well meaning enough, but sandwiched between provisions protecting the child from exploitation and abuse are provisions protecting the child from its parents. In other words, this Convention totally eviscerates the parent's role in child development, ostensibly "freeing" the child from the cultural mores and institutions that violate his/her "rights" and "inhibit" his/her development. In 1968, Warren Bennis and Philip Slater wrote in THE TEMPORARY SOCIETY,
One cannot permit submission to parental authority if one wishes to bring about profound social change....In order to effect rapid changes, any such centralized regime must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children to insulate the latter in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas. The desire may be to cause an even more total submission to the state, but if one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior, inasmuch as they are closer to this future goal. One must also study their needs with care in order to achieve this difficult preparation for the future. One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant.
With this statement setting the context, it would be well to consider the following Articles of the CRC.
Article 3 of the Convention states that in all actions concerning children the "best interest of the child" shall be the primary consideration. It would be hard to find fault with this provision until one considers that it is the State that determines what is in the child's "best interest". The parents' desires are conspicuously absent from this provision.
Article 4 makes it clear that the treaty is not just a "positive affirmation", but that it will be implemented under the force of law. Signatory nations are required to "undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights" spelled out in the convention. If the U.S. ratified the treaty, it would be bound to "undertake measures to the maximum extent of available resources...within the framework of international cooperation in order to restructure society in accordance with the implementation of these rights." [emphasis supplied]
Article 7 requires all parents to register their children at birth. This would enable the State to track their development and ensure that their "rights" are not violated.
Article 13 would make parents subject to prosecution for keeping their children from interacting with material that they judge to be harmful to them. This provision bestows a virtually absolute "freedom of expression" on the child. This includes the right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." [emphasis supplied]
Furthermore, Article 17 of the CRC declares that "States' Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health. To this end, States Parties shall encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child and...encourage international co-operation in the production, exchange and dissemination of such information and material from a diversity of cultural, national and international sources." These "inalienable rights" may only be restricted by the government in order to preserve the public order. This would eliminate the parents' ability to protect their children from corruptive influences. In other words, if a child wanted to watch a pornographic video or read a book on how to practice witchcraft, it would be a crime for the parent to prevent it.
Article 14 says, "States' Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." This provision would necessarily "empower" the child to object to any religious training and would permit him to pursue any religious belief that his little heart desired. Again, the child's only limitation would be the government acting to preserve the public order.
Article 15 creates "the right of the child to freedom of association." This provision declares that this right shall not be infringed except in the interest of public order. This would prevent parents from preventing their children from associating with persons of dubious character. For instance, if parents were to become suspicious of another adult's interest in their child, and the child wanted to be friends and spend time with this adult, then the parents would be violating the child's right to "freedom of association" if they intervened. This probably explains why the CRC receives the unqualified support of a group seeking the sexual liberation of children, a group known as the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
The CRC would also invest children with the right to "privacy". Like many other of this document's innocuous sounding provisions, this one is loaded with possibilities. The U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion on the grounds that it is a "privacy" issue. If the same right to privacy were given to children, they would very reasonably possess the right to an abortion on demand without parental consent, have a right to contraceptives, and a right to sexual intercourse with whomever they please, not to mention being protected from "unreasonable searches" by their parents.
Along with the aforementioned "rights" is the right to a compulsory education. We know that this education will not be received at home, however, because Article 28 orders States to "take measures" to "encourage regular attendance in schools." These schools will teach each child to have "the spirit of understanding, peace, toleration, equity of sexes, and friendship (for) all peoples, ethnic, national, and religious groups of indigenous origin". In other words, they will be indoctrinated with the New World Order world view.
It is also no surprise that corporal punishment will be forbidden under this treaty when it becomes "supreme law of the land." Article 29 establishes that discipline must be administered in a way that will protect the child's "human dignity". For those parents who already know the dangers of disciplining their children in public, there is no need to explain that this provision will do away with the rod of correction.
There are many other "rights" bestowed by this Convention upon the oppressed children of the world, especially those who are oppressed by the scruples of their parents. These provisions remove parental restraint, and make governmental authority the only boundary that steps in when the "public order" is at stake. It infers that children must create a riot or armed insurrection before they are finally restrained.
These are just a few of the provisions of this Convention and a few of the plausible effects. The statements in the document are broad and far reaching, and their effects will only be determined in the future by the legal imaginations of those implementing them. Like the U.S. Constitution, they will make the CRC say whatever they want it to. It is evident at the beginning, however, that this world is at the threshhold of an era when children are owned and controlled by the state, and when parents, like Moses' mother, are merely the brood stock and hired babysitters for the New World Order. This is underscored by the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) advertisement slogan that proclaims: "UNICEF - because every child is our child."
Most people in society today have become accustomed to the New Order of things. In many cases, both parents work and children are shipped off to day care and then school as soon as possible. Schools have expanded their curriculum to include before and after school programs to accommodate those children whose parents work full time. Some children eat all three meals at school, only going home to sleep and on weekends. The state is already playing a big role in the raising of today's children, and there are few that will object to the big brotherly arms that are squeezing the families of today in its controlling embrace.
It may not come as good news to the humanist global planners of today that there are parents who are training their children to be free of unrighteous controls. In many cases the mother or father (or both) take the time to teach their children themselves at home, giving them the careful attention that they would never receive at a State institution. Many of these parents are teaching their children things that would curdle the blood of your modern, humanist social planner. In addition to the reading, writing, and arithmetic, many of these home schoolers learn that there is a righteous God who created the earth in six days, and that God created man in his own image, not the image of an ape, and that the Holy Bible is the revelation of His will. Many are also learning such State heresies such as hard work, honesty, respect for parents and authority, being accountable for one's actions, and how to resist the power of the devil who thinks he is running the world today. Such a curriculum would certainly be labeled "child abuse" under the CRC, and all may be assured that the State will do its best to remedy the situation as it would be bound to do under the CRC.
Because the socialist world view is totalitarian in nature, it is vitally important that all comply with its mandates, without exception. It is the above mentioned "pockets of self sufficiency and independent thought" that the State hopes to eradicate without too much difficulty. The State shall be disappointed, however, as it finds that true Christian principle is not yielding like the complacent masses.
A battle of epic proportions is upon us - the mother of all battles. It is the antitype of every battle between good and evil that has ever been fought. As the New World Order is moving to consolidate its control by attempting to erase the most fundamental freedoms - freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the sacredness and sovereignty of the family - they will find they have overreached themselves. Christian principle is "an anvil that has worn out many hammers", and in this climactic battle between the New Order and God's Eternal Order, the forces of evil will suffer their final defeat.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of
material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.
This site is in the public domain.