The hidden back side of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is invoked in everything. It presents itself as the protector of the child — and of the family. But it has a back side that hardly anyone knows. Read closely, the convention has stripped parents of their rights and written the family out — both the whole family and the divided family after a separation.
Is article 5 a protection of parents' rights — or not?
It is in article 5 that parental rights are lost. At first glance it looks like a protection of parents.
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.
— UNCRC, article 5
Read the two clauses again. The parents' role applies only "in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention". In other words, the mother and the father are not to guide the child from their own values, their own culture or their own faith — but towards the rights the UN has itself defined. And the role applies only "in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child". As the child grows, the parents' right shrinks.
That is not a protection of parents. It is a dismantling of them.
And notice what the word right covers. When the child has a right, the parents cannot stand against it. A right means a must.
- The child has a right to the sexuality education the WHO has defined — read: must.
- A right to vaccination programmes defined by the health authorities or the UN — read: must.
- A right to mental health services, including medical intervention — read: must.
All of it without the parents' consent, without their being informed, and without their being involved. And the sexuality education does not take place in the open. The child and the young person are subjected to it, without the mother and the father being able to refuse. Anyone who goes deep into that material is simply left feeling sick.
A theme of its own
This sexuality education — the WHO's Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) — is a form of brainwashing, and we go into it in depth elsewhere.
Podcast on the way.
It amounts in reality to stripping parents of their legal authority. Because parental rights reach only as far as you support what the state calls community spirit. If the mother or the father says no thank you — to a recommendation, to a measure, to a line — you are no longer a responsible parent, but uncooperative. And disagreement with the authority brings with it the risk that the child is removed.
And the family? It has been written out. Across the UN's 169 subgoals it appears in only two places — as "family planning", and as a place where the housework is to be shared. From the fundamental unit of society to an object of planning. That holds for the whole family as well as for the divided family after a separation — the very units that carry the child.
What is left is the child, alone with the state, and a convention that promises protection with one hand and removes it with the other. That is the hidden back side.
The journey continues · chapter 6 of 7
The price of fighting for children
What happens to the professionals who say it out loud? Meet the psychologist, the lawyer and the human rights counsel who each paid the price for fighting for the children.