Series on Childrens Rights – By Kathy Sinnott

May 3rd, 2012

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

Series on Childrens Rights – By Kathy Sinnott

A 6 part series on childrens rights, published in the Alive newspaper in preparation for the upcoming so called “childrens rights” referendum

By Kathy Sinnott

PART 1

Aine (name changed) was waiting in the ante-natal clinic. With two months to go, she was reflecting on the changes in her life since her last pregnancy.

At that time she was struggling with domestic violence. And she was obsessed with minimising her baby bump because she knew the rage it stirred up in her boyfriend.

Today, like the other mothers, she rubbed her sizable bump and patted the baby within.

When she had finally taken her children and left her boyfriend, she faced considerable difficulties, and turned to a local HSE agency.

The “help” she got was not the support advertised on the poster, it was a social worker with a garda who took her children.

What followed were heartbreaking visits that ended with her clinging children being torn from her arms. Now, she thought sadly, they walk away without even a backward look.

For four years, she worked hard to prove to the HSE that she was a good person and a capable mother.

She became a teetotaler, quit smoking, did parenting courses, re-established contact with her own family. Nothing was ever good enough.

But now she had new hope. She was married to a kind man with a good job. They had a comfortable home. She believed that by the time this baby arrived home so would his brother and sister.

Aine was relieved to finally hear her name called. But in the corridor she was diverted to the social workers’ office. She felt suddenly anxious.

She had learned to be wary of social workers. The woman’s message was brief: “You know Aine, we are taking the baby as soon as it’s born, in the best interest of the child.”

The social worker’s words and the story of Aine’s escape, her two months of mothering on the run, and the loss of her baby when the HSE caught up with her, haunt me.

Her request to me for help introduced me to the secret world of the Irish family courts. Since then, I have discovered that Aine’s experience is not unique.

There are bad, abusive, and negligent parents but none of the parents I have met since Aine are remotely in this category.

Instead they are people who because of a misunderstanding or a need for temporary or on-going support have run foul of “children’s rights”.

Many people in Ireland have only heard the term “children’s rights” in the last year.

After the horrors of child abuse, the term plays gently on the ear. We might think that “rights” are a way of making up for the past and protecting children in the future.

But we would be wrong. Before accepting this package we must see what is inside. In coming issues of Alive! we will do just that.

We will examine the history, legal status and legacy of “childrens rights”, and the implications for children (including teenagers).

We will also look at the rights of children under our Constitution, and the role of parents, family and marriage in promoting their welfare.

PART 2

‘This is the end of the family’

Few Irish people realise that when it comes to children, we now have two quite distinct and, in many aspects, conflicting legal systems in operation.

The Irish Constitution is the basis for one. The legal base for the other is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Such is the conflict between these two that our government had three choices:

(a) refuse to ratify the convention; (b) ask the people of Ireland through a referendum, and ratify the convention only if the result was ‘Yes’.

Many countries took option (c). For example, Moslem countries ratified the convention only insofar as it was compatible with Sharia Law.

But Irish officials ratified it in 1992 with little discussion and less fanfare. It slipped quietly into our jurisdiction.

Since then, it, not our Constitution, has been the basis of most government policy towards children.

The evidence shows that successive Irish governments have been aware of the unconstitutional nature of the convention, but have continued to implement it anyway.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was drawn up in the late 1980s.

At the time Dr James Grant was head of UNICEF, the UN department for children. He was focused on child survival.

He initiated projects for clean water, food, primary health care, family support, maternity and breastfeeding services, early education, —projects that kept children alive.

It is said of him that he saved more lives than Hitler, Mao and Stalin took.

Marjorie Garvey, from New York, was, at the time, an observer to the UN.

She has described how radical feminist like Carol Bellamy pressurised Grant to produce a convention on children’s rights.

The final document has clear divisions between Grant’s articles on child survival and the feminists’ agenda.

Grant stressed basic health and welfare of children, their need for their family, ethnicity, language.

The feminists promoted a more radical agenda: the child’s right to privacy from parents, to access all forms of communication and media, to sexual and reproductive services and to be part of every decision that affects them.

But the feminists won out on the foundation principle: Everything to do with a child would be determined on “the best interest of the child” and it was the State that would decide the child’s “best interest”, thus granting the State full control over children.

In 1995, Carol Bellamy one of the radicals behind the convention, became head of UNICEF.

Over the next 9 years, Mrs Garvey complained that in the name of childrens’ rights, Bellamy was destroying UNICEF.

Basic nutrition, hydration and breastfeeding programmes were scrapped in favour of pet projects like self awareness programs for teenage girls and fertility control initiatives.

Bellamy resigned in disgrace just before the end of her second term when The Lancet published a paper on UNICEF under her rule.

It accused her of shifting UNICEF’s mission from child survival to children’s rights, resulting in the death of millions of children in developing countries.

John Ashcroft, US Attorney General under President Bush, described the morning he read the Convention.

He arrived to his office at 6am. The convention, was in the centre of his desk, fresh from the UN. He spent the next three hours carefully reading it.

He told me that when he finished he thought, “This is a revolution, it is the end of the family!”

He then picked up the phone and said, “Mr President, do not ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

Series on Childrens Rights By Kathy Sinnott, Parts 3-6 will be published here at One World Scam