Key document craftily worded by control freaks to break up the family.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child was signed in 1989 and "put into force" in 1990. Before delving into specific points, it should be noted that:
1. Rights are naturally inherent and cannot be made or changed.
2. The U.N., like all other "government" institutions, is funded by extortion and based in violence, so it is illegitimate.
3. Individuals that work for or with the U.N. have been repeatedly caught committing sex and human trafficking crimes, some of which have involved children.
4. Nowhere does the document mention Natural Rights or Natural Law.
With that in mind, let's dig into specific areas of the so-called "Convention on the Rights of the Child"
My additions are in bold and italics.
From
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
Article 19
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
Translation: Members of the aggressor class shall put words on paper posing as law, create bureaucratic red tape, and engage in mind-control measures to ensure that children believe in the religious superstition of authority. The cult of the state shall grandstand as benevolent protectors of children, while simultaneously kidnapping children and subjecting them to various types of abuse and exploitation.
Additional Comments: Article 19, I must say, is pretty loaded. First of all, “states parties” are based on a foundation of violence and slavery. This means that it is literally a logical impossibility for “states parties” to “protect children from violence, maltreatment, etc."
Also, legislation is nothing more than an opinion posing as law. Any legislation that is in opposition to Natural Law is illegitimate. The legislation they use is very carefully worded for the purpose of making it easy to attempt to justify breaking up families and, by default, growing the power of coercive institutions (the state).
What really jolted me about Article 19, though, was the “sexual abuse” part.
Why?
Because, as has been repeatedly documented, people working with the U.N. have been caught in sexual abuse scandals. It’s one of the most extreme and sickening contradictions that I’ve come across in statist legalese jargon.
EVER.
Article 24
(f) To develop preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services.
3. States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.
Translation:
Family planning services = Murdering babies and sterilizing adults
Comments: Regarding section three, what “traditional practices” are they referring to? I’m very curious to find out. They say “prejudicial to the health of children”. So what traditions could they be? I’ll venture some guesses here. The vagueness of the language they use allows for very wide interpretations, so I suppose they could use such language to:
1. Steal children away from people who refuse vaccines.
2. Steal children away from home educators.
3. Steal children away from people who use natural medicines (such as Cannabis) and refuse pharmaceuticals.
Article 26
1. States Parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national law.
2. The benefits should, where appropriate, be granted, taking into account the resources and the circumstances of the child and persons having responsibility for the maintenance of the child, as well as any other consideration relevant to an application for benefits made by or on behalf of the child.
My comments: The state is completely funded by theft, so saying that anyone has a “right” to “social security” provided by the state is equivalent to saying that people have the right to stolen property. It’s completely immoral and logically absurd.
Human needs should be met through voluntary interactions among individuals and private groups. This is the only moral way to find solutions in this area, and also creates better overall quality of goods and services. Can you honestly name one thing the state does well that does not involve coercion or violence?
End Part 4
Part 5 Coming Soon!
Thanks for your time and attention!
Just say "NO" to slavery!
Top image is from wikimedia commons
Child must get all saport and love from there parents before or after the break down of the family whish is not actually getting
I really liked your comments with their respective analyzes.
Now, well, within one of the functions of the State, Case Venezuela: The state has a primary function called Civilization of the State are intended to provide the common welfare and moral, intellectual, artistic, economic and social advancement of the people, this it involves the protection that must give us all as citizens and more but much more to children and adolescents, since they will be the support of a country when they are productive men and women.