Watching CYFSWATCH NZ

In support of CYFSWATCH NZ and the right of Free Speech. First visit to Watching CYFSWATCH NZ? Visit our home page. Please visit our e/group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/watchingcyfs/

Stealing babies

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 17, 2007

Source: Reformation Testimony

The UN’s role in the Sue Bradford anti-family bill; or: Who is trying to steal your babies?

It is not the Gypsies you need to worry about. The anti-family Bradford bill which seeks to repeal the right of parents to physically correct their children assumes an underlying philosophy that it is the government who has the right to bring up your child and not you the parent. The government itself through the government-run body, the New Zealand HRC is driving this and say in their plan “Priorities for Action 2005—2010”:

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has recommended that section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 (which allows force to be used on a child for discipline where it is deemed reasonable in the circumstances) be reviewed to effectively ban all forms of corporal punishment. The Government has signalled that it will review this law in 2005.

Even though this is supposed to be a private members bill, the HRC quite clearly claim that it is the government who want to review the law in 2005. They add that it is a “priority for action” to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961. It is perfectly obvious that the United Nations has captured the hearts and minds of our political masters.

New Zealand has signed up to UNCROC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) and therefore agreed to implement the articles of this convention. Article 17 of this convention gives the state the right to indoctrinate your children:

Article 17
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 [emphasis added]. To this end, States Parties shall:

(a) Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child and in accordance with the spirit of article 29.

Notice that the government (states party) is to “ensure” that the child has access to undefined “national and international sources” to promote the “social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health [emphasis added]” of children. And the means whereby the state is going to indoctrinate children for their “social, spiritual and moral well-being” is the mass media. Parents do not get a mention here. Now it is obvious that if this article means anything then a certain type of “social, spiritual and moral well-being” will be intended. Since it is the government who takes this responsibility for this social, spiritual and moral well-being, they will promote their religious principles. This is obvious.
Moreover, we know that their religious principles involve secularism, atheism, materialism and globalism.

  • Secularism is a rejection of any revelation from God which He has given to guide all men and society. A secularist follows the dictum of Greek Sophist Protagoras who taught that man’s fallen reason is the measure of all things.
  • Atheism is a closely related idea, because it is a rejection of the God of the Bible.
  • Materialism is the view that all that exists is what you can see and touch. Therefore there is no spirit or soul; nor any God to whom one is accountable.
  • Globalism is the view that all nations should become as one and adopt the same ethics. The central focus of globalism is on the conventions and treaties of the United Nations. Globalism involves judges and courts being guided by international law, and its proponents would like to see an international army which could invade any sovereign nation at the behest of the United Nations.

But think a little bit more deeply about the kind of ethical system this government wants for your children. The sorts of legislation already passed by the feminist and homosexual dominated Labour/Green powerbase demonstrates the type of ethics and the “spiritual” and “moral” direction the government want your children to go in.

They most certainly do not want your children to be guided by biblical ethics, because the legislation they have passed is a clear signal that it is a good thing to gamble; to visit or be employed as a prostitute; to be a homosexual; to be a politician and lie, commit offences such as drink-driving, or smoke pot with impunity. But in order for the government to make a decent job of converting our children to their atheistic standards, they devise ways that prevent a parent from shaping the moral and spiritual character of the child by actually removing the child from the home. This anti-family anti-smacking bill will result in families being broken up and children torn from their mother’s breast. This has happened in Sweden who have had an anti-family law like Bradfords since 1979. Ruby Harrold-Claesson a Swedish lawyer and president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights outlines the horrendous results of this legislation in her country.

The law in Sweden has resulted in hundreds of normal parents being harassed by the police and social authorities, prosecuted, sentenced and criminalised, because they have smacked their children for bad behaviour.

Parents belonging to ethnic minorities and parents with strong religious convictions, in particular, have been victimised under the 1979 law.

When children are removed from their supposedly ‘abusive’ parents and taken into care, they suffer the torture of forced separation from parents, brothers and sisters, and other relatives and friends. They are also exposed to the risk of real abuse. Such children are frequently subjected to physical, mental and even sexual abuse, but social workers and the police seldom listen to the complaints of children in care.

The 1979 law has caused incalculable damage to countless families where allegations have been made and investigations carried out, even where the charges have been dropped at an early stage

The religious indoctrination of our children by the New Zealand government

According to the preamble of UNCROC, a the child is to be brought up in the “spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity [emphasis added].” The child is to be “fully prepared” to live as an individual. Who is going to fully prepare a child to live according to the “spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations”? Of course it is the UN-friendly government. And as the preamble shows they are to indoctrinate children according to the ethics of the United Nations: The preamble outlines this very clearly:

Bearing in mind that the need to extend particular care to the child has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924 and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 1959 and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular in articles 23 and 24), in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in particular in article 10) and in the statutes and relevant instruments of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children.’

The parents must share the upbringing of their children with society as a whole, but especially the civil government and government agencies will ensure that your child becomes a UN child. The preamble gives lip-service to the “family”, but makes it plain that the government will decide on the indoctrination of children:

Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity (Preamble UNCROC).

Article 5 of UNCROC makes it plain that the state will only recognise the rights of parents to guide and direct their children in so far as the parents are doing so according to the United Nations’ conventions. The state takes over if the parents reject the UN ethical and religious system.

Article 5
States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

Article 2 also affirms that the rights of the child contained in UNCROC override the rights of the parents assumed by the parents’ religious commitments.

Article 2.
States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

And Article 6 asserts again that the state has the responsibility for the “development of your child or children. “Article 6: States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child”.

UNCROC also ensures that children will have a say in their actions and activities. A child who wanted to attend a class at school where it was taught that homosexuality was normal though the parent did not want the child to go, the parent could be overruled by the child’s wishes and the parent would have to meekly submit.

Article 13 states:

The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom 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.

UNCROC also carries the seeds of hate-speech law.

Article 14
Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Notice that this is referring to children and if the state decide that your religious principles will adversely affect the “morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”, then that religion will be illicit. Since Christianity claims to be truth over against all other religions and since the Christian faith critiques social and personal ethics the government now has the motive and moral authority from the UN to restrict what you or your child can say as a Christian. There is no question that this is a satanic attempt to destroy the family and to steal children from their parents.

UNCROC is also very explicit when it proclaims that the state not the parent has the right to decide what sort of ethics your child will be taught.

Article 29
1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:
(a) The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential.
(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.

The New Zealand government has signed up to this evil doctrine and will ensure that your children are taught the religion of the charter of the UN.

The Sue Bradford anti-family bill is responding directly to UNCROC as directed by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission, a government agency controlled by the anti-Christian left. It is time all right-thinking New Zealanders stood up and insisted that our government repeal its commitment to the United Nations’ conventions. Who will have the courage? Certainly the opposition political parties have been strangely silent on the Bradford anti-family bill. Nonetheless, as Christians, whatever the Parliament decides, we will be both teaching that it is right to continue to use corporal correction as a parent (Prov. 13:24) and that we must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

Remember that the claim being made that parents will not be arrested for smacking their children if this bill goes through is a lie. If Bradford wanted to retain the right for parents to smack their children she would have made provision in the bill – something she has not done, nor will do.

Garnet Milne PhD

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: